JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The instant appeal stands directed, against, the impugned award, rendered by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- Una, District Una, H.P.(for short "MACT), upon, MACP No. 38 of 2015 (a) wherethrough, compensation amount borne, in a sum of Rs.20,56,380/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum, commencing, from the date of filing, of, the afore claim petition, till realization thereof, (b) was assessed, vis-a-vis, all the petitioners therein, and, (c) the apposite indemnificatory liability thereof, stood fastened, upon the appellant herein/respondent No.3, in, the afore claim petition. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurer, contests, the validity of the findings recorded, vis-a-vis, the issue appertaining, to, the rash, and, negligent driving, of, the offending vehicle, and, his afore argument is rested, upon, the factum qua with the FIR embodied in Ex.P-2, proven by RW-2 (HC Rajeev Kumar), making echoings, hence, vis-a-vis, the relevant tort, hence being committed, by the deceased driver of, the ill-fated vehicle. However, the afore argument(s) is unmeritworthy, (a) as, the afore echoings, do not, constitute any substantive piece of evidence (b), and, also with the informant, not, stepping into the witness box, despite, his being the best person to prove the genesis, of, the occurrence embodied in the apposite FIR, (c) rather when PW-1 (Navdeep Kashyap), an eye witness, to, the occurrence, upon, his stepping in to the witness box, and, his rendering, an, uneroded testification, vis-a-vis, the commission, of, tort of negligence, hence by the driver of the offending vehicle, (d) thereupon, also the afore echoings, borne in, the FIR embodied in Ex. P2, wherein echoings are borne, rather ascribing, the, commission, of, tort of negligence qua, the deceased driver, is/are, squarely, and, fully blunted, and, maimed. 3. The learned counsel for the insurer/appellant herein, has, also contended with much vigor, before this Court, qua, the driving licence of the deceased driver, being, fake, as, evident, from a perusal of Ex. R-1, exhibit whereof, is, a report, made, by the Investigator. However, the afore submission, is, falteringly made, given it being made, upon, his being unmindful, vis-a-vis, the best evidence, qua the validity of driving licence, borne, in, Ex. P-6, and, cogently proven by the deposition, hence rendered by RW-3 (Daleep Kumar), the, official, of, the DTO Office, Hoshiyarpur. 4. R-1, exhibit whereof, is, a report, made, by the Investigator. However, the afore submission, is, falteringly made, given it being made, upon, his being unmindful, vis-a-vis, the best evidence, qua the validity of driving licence, borne, in, Ex. P-6, and, cogently proven by the deposition, hence rendered by RW-3 (Daleep Kumar), the, official, of, the DTO Office, Hoshiyarpur. 4. Be that as it may, the, learned counsel, for, the insurer has also proceeded, to, make a contention before this Court, that, since the claimants at the time, of, happening of the relevant mishap, hence, were not dependent, upon, the income of the deceased, and thereupon, they are not entitled, for, any determination, of, compensation amount,(a) in making the afore submission, he has alluded, to the admission, occurring in the cross-examination of PW-3 (Rohit Kumar), with, echoings therein, vis-a-vis, in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, the ill fated occurrence, wherein, his father met his end, his drawing, a, per mensem salary of Rs.35,000/-, (b) and, thereafter, his further echoings qua his sister, the daughter of the deceased, holding an employment in a private school, and thereafter hers being married. The afore submission, is, meritworthy, and, unless evidence stood adduced qua, despite, the requisite remunerations drawn by the afore, from their apposite employment(s), yet theirs' being dependent, upon, the income of the deceased, (a) whereas with the afore requisite echoings, remaining unarticulated by PW-3, (b) thereupon it is to be concluded, that, the claimants were not, at, the relevant time, hence, dependent upon the income of the deceased, hence computation of compensation made qua them, under, the head loss, of, income, is interfered with. 5. Nowat from the afore, the impugned award is also modified, only, to the extent, qua, the claimants, being only entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- each, under, the head filial consortium, and, to a sum of Rs. Rs.15,000/-, under, the head "loss of estate", and, to a sum of Rs. 15,000/- under the head "funeral expenses". For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the insurer, is, partly allowed, and, the impugned award, is, in the aforesaid manner, hence modified. The claimants are now entitled to a sum of Rs.60,000/- (15,000+15000+30,000) alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 1.4.2015 till realization thereof. Compensation amount be apportioned amongst the claimants in the manner, as, made by the learned Tribunal. The claimants are now entitled to a sum of Rs.60,000/- (15,000+15000+30,000) alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 1.4.2015 till realization thereof. Compensation amount be apportioned amongst the claimants in the manner, as, made by the learned Tribunal. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.