JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 26.11.2009, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una, H.P. in MAC Petition No. 4 of 2009, titled Chaman Lal and another versus Divisional Manager HRTC and others, for short “the Tribunal”, whereby all the issues were decided against the claimants and Rs.50,000/- under no fault liability was granted in favour of the claimants alongwith interest @ 9% per annum, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”, for short. 2. Claimants have questioned the impugned award on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 3. Respondents have not questioned the impugned award on any ground, has attained finality. 4. The claimants being the victim of a vehicular accident, filed claim petition before the Tribunal, for the grant of compensation as per the breaks-ups given in the claimant petition, on account of death of their son, namely, Ram Kumar 22 years of age at the time of accident, which was caused by Subhash Chand driver while driving HRTC bus bearing registration No. HP-72-0212 at about 9.30 p.m. at Chattara Behadala road District Una, H.P.. 5. The claim petition was resisted and following issues came to be framed. (i) Whether Ram Kumar had died in a motor vehicle accident on 5.1.2009 at about 9.30 p.m. at Chattar Behadala road, District Una, due to rash and negligent driving of bus No. HP-72-0212 owned by respondents 1 and 2 and being driven by respondent No. 3, as alleged? OPP. (ii) If issue No. 1 is proved whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP. (iii) Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR1 and 2. (iv) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties, if so, its effect? OPR 1 and (v) Relief. 6. Claimants examined three witnesses and claimant Chaman Lal appeared as PW4 in the witness-box. Driver Subhash Chand also appeared as witness in the witness-box. 7. Respondents have not examined any witness. Thus, the evidence led by the claimants have remained un-rebutted. 8. OPR 1 and (v) Relief. 6. Claimants examined three witnesses and claimant Chaman Lal appeared as PW4 in the witness-box. Driver Subhash Chand also appeared as witness in the witness-box. 7. Respondents have not examined any witness. Thus, the evidence led by the claimants have remained un-rebutted. 8. Paramjit Singh, who has conducted the investigation in FIR No. 14 of 2009 in police Station Una, under Sections 279 and 304 Indian Penal Code, for short “IPC” appeared before the Tribunal as witness and deposed that the driver Subhash Chand had driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and caused the accident and FIR was lodged against him. Final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC was presented against the driver before the Court of competent jurisdiction on 5.2.2009. FIR stands exhibited as Ext. PW2/A, is a prima facie evidence on the file, in order to, hold that driver Subhash Chand had driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligent. It is apt to record herein that Subhash Chand driver, who appeared as witness, has virtually not been able to dislodge the evidence led by the claimants. Thus, the Tribunal has fallen in an error in holding that the claimants have failed to prove the rash and negligent driving by the driver. Even in para 2 of the impugned award, respondents No. 1 to 3 have admitted that FIR was lodged against driver Subhash Chand under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC despite that the issues were decided against the claimants. 9. Having said so, the Tribunal has fallen in an error. Accordingly, it is held that the driver Subhash Chand has driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligent at the relevant point of time. In view of above, issue No.1 is decided in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. 10. Before I deal with issue No. 2, I deem it proper to deal with issues No. 3 and 4. It was for the respondents to lead evidence, have not led any evidence, thus, failed to discharge the onus. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the respondents and in favour of the claimants. Even the respondents have not questioned the findings returned on these issues. Accordingly, issues No.3 and 4 are decided in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. 11. Issue No. 2. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the respondents and in favour of the claimants. Even the respondents have not questioned the findings returned on these issues. Accordingly, issues No.3 and 4 are decided in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. 11. Issue No. 2. Admittedly, the deceased was 22 years of age and it is stated that he was JCB driver. Taking his income as a labourer he would have been earning Rs.4500/- per month. One half was to be deducted Keeping in view the 2nd Schedule attached to the Motor Vehicles Act, for short “the Act, read with Sarla Verma and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 and upheld in Reshma Kumari and others versus Madan Mohan and another, reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3120. 12. Thus, it is held that the claimants have lost the source of dependency to the tune of Rs.2250x12x15= Rs. 4,05,000/-. I also hold the claimants entitled to compensation under the three heads as under: (i) loss of love and affection: Rs.10,000/- (ii) Loss of estate : Rs.10,000/- (iii) Funeral expenses : Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.30,000/- Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to Rs. 4,35,000 alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of impugned award, keeping view the facts of the case. 13. Respondents No. 1 and 2, i.e., HRTC are saddled with the liability and are directed to deposit the amount within eight weeks from today. On deposit, the Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimants, through payees’ cheque account or by depositing the same in their bank account. 14. The appeal is accordingly, disposed of. Send down the record forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.