JUDGMENT : 1. By way of this appeal, the appellants- original claimants have challenged the judgment and award of the MACT (Main), Dahod, Dated : 06.07.2009, passed in MACP New No.3503/2004[Old No. 1719/2000], to the extent it orders that the claimants as well as opponent No.4 be paid the amount of compensation. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the deceased Dipsingbhai was working as labourer on the tractor bearing No. GJ-20-T-8147, which was driven by opponent No.1, owned by opponent No.2 and insured by opponent No.3. On 04.05.2000, the deceased and opponent No.1 were going towards village Sanjeli along with the said tractor and trolley. At that time, according to the claimants, opponent No.1 was driving the tractor in a rash and negligent manner and due to that it went turtle near village Bhutkhedi. On account of the alleged accident, Dipsingbhai received severe injuries and later on succumbed to the same. Hence, the appellants, herein, being the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased, preferred the aforesaid claim petition, wherein, the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Mr. Shah, learned Advocate for the appellants, submitted that in view of the fact that opponent No.4 had remarried within one month from the date of demise of Dipsingbhai, deserting her minor son, i.e. appellant No.2, herein, the Tribunal ought not to have awarded any amount to opponent No.4. Mr. Shah, further, submitted that even otherwise the apportionment done by the Tribunal is not just and proper, and hence, the appeal be allowed, by setting aside the order of the Tribunal to that extent. 4. As against this Mr. Kapadia, learned Advocate for opponent No.4, supported the judgment and award of the Tribunal and submitted that the same was passed after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and hence, no interference is called for at the hands of this Court. 5. Heard. So far as the first submission made by Mr. Shah with regard to second marriage by opponent No.4 is concerned, there is no material on record to justify the same, much less any documentary evidence. 5. Heard. So far as the first submission made by Mr. Shah with regard to second marriage by opponent No.4 is concerned, there is no material on record to justify the same, much less any documentary evidence. The Tribunal, hence, rightly come to the conclusion that when there is no material to establish the fact of second marriage by opponent No.4, she shall also be entitled to receive the benefits of the judgment of the Tribunal, more particularly, when it is not disputed by the appellants that opponent No.4 happened to be the widow of the deceased Dipsingbhai. Hence, the said contention raised by Mr. Shah is rejected. 6. Insofar as the second contention with regard to the apportionment of quantum is concerned, it is not in dispute that the custody of the son of the deceased Dipsingbhai, i.e. appellant No.2, herein, has been constantly with appellant No.1 from the date of accident to till date. Mr. Kapadia, learned Counsel for opponent No.4, also confirmed the aforesaid position. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met, if, opponent No.4 is granted a lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/-. 7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The opponent No.4 will be paid Rs.50,000/-as full and final amount towards compensation, out of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal vide order dated 06.07.2009, whereas, the remaining amount of compensation along with interest will be deposited in FDRs, if, appellant No.2 is still a minor and if, he has attained majority, then, the concerned Tribunal will do the needful for disbursement of the same to the appellants. The order of the Tribunal, Dated : 06.07.2009, stands MODIFIED, accordingly. No order as to costs. Direct service is permitted.