Judgment Mr. H.S. Madaan, J.:-By this common judgment, I intend to dispose of two appealsi.e. bearing FAO 2242-2017 titled as ‘Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Ajmer Kaur and others’ and FAO 4172-2017 titled as’Ajmer Kaur and others vs. Dharma Singh and others’, as both theseappeals have arisen out of the same award. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that on account of deathof Bant Singh, in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on15.2.2016, at about 6.30/7.00 P.M., on the road leading from Cheemato village Amrui Kotra on main road Bathinda, statedly on account ofrash and negligent driving of Mahindra Pick-Up Balero bearingregistration No. PB-31P-1566, by respondent No.1 Dharma Singh,legal heirs of Bant Singh son of Kartar Singh, deceased namely, hiswife Smt. Ajmer Kaur, daughters Rajwinder Kaur and Gurjit Kaur,sons Darshan Singh and Nirmal Singh, had brought a claim petitionunder Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, againstrespondents i.e. Dharma Singh - driver, Karam Singh - owner and theOriental Insurance Company Limited, Bathinda - insurer of Mahindra Pick-Up Balero bearing registration No. PB-31P-1566(hereinafter to be referred as ‘the offending vehicle’), claimingcompensation of Rs.30 lacs. 3. In the claim petition they had impleaded Chint Kaur -motherof the deceased as proforma respondent No.4. 4. On getting notice, all the three respondents appeared andoffered a contest. After trial, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Sangrur, vide award dated 13.1.2017, accepted the petition andawarded compensation of Rs.2,51,500/- to the claimants andrespondent No.4 to be shared by them equally, whereas claimant No.1was found entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- onaccount of loss of consortium. The amount was ordered to be madepayable by respondent No.3 with interest @ 7.5% per annum from thedate of filing of claim petition till its decision. Further observing thatif respondent No.3 failed to make payment within two months fromthe date of order, then it would be liable to pay future interest @ 9%per annum. The petition was accepted with costs. 5. Not satisfied with the amount of compensation granted tothem by the Tribunal, the claimants have approached this Court byway of filing FAO-4172-2017 6. Similarly, Insurance company was dissatisfied with theaward and has filed a separate appeal bearing FAO-2242-2017 7. Notice in both the appeals was given to the respectiverespondents, who have put in appearance through their respectivecounsel. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, besides goingthrough the record. 9. Similarly, Insurance company was dissatisfied with theaward and has filed a separate appeal bearing FAO-2242-2017 7. Notice in both the appeals was given to the respectiverespondents, who have put in appearance through their respectivecounsel. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, besides goingthrough the record. 9. The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence, adduced before ithas returned a finding that the accident took place due to rash andnegligent driving of Mahindra Pick-Up Balero bearing registrationNo. PB-31P-1566, driven by respondent No.1. The reasoning givenwhile deciding issue No.1 is contained in paras No. 10, 11 and 12,which for ready reference are reproduced as under :- “10. Since the present petition filed underSection 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, it was thebounden duty of the claimants to prove thatrespondent No.l was driving vehicle No. PB-31P-1566 in a rash and negligent manner at thetime of accident. The onus to prove issue No.1was upon the claimants. To prove said mootpoint, one of the claimants Darshan Singhhimself stepped into witness box as CW1, whoin his testimony tendered his affidavitEX.CW1/A, wherein, he testified that on15.02.2016, at about 6.30/7.00 p.m he wasstanding at Bus stand Amru Kotra. Meanwhilehis father Bant Singh alongwith ShamsherSingh came on Scooty no.PB-44A-9973 fromCheema towards his village. The scooty wasdriven by Bant Singh. When his father turnedthe scooty towards his village from the mainroad, then one Mahindera Pick Up BolleroNo.PB- 31P-1556 came from the Sunam Side ina very high sped and the driver of said vehiclein a rash and negligent manner and struck thesame with the scooty of his father and draggedthe same to a distance of about 15-20 yards.Bant Singh and Shamsher Singh were admittedin Civil Hospital Sunam, from where BantSingh was referred to Rajindera Hospital Patialaand then to PGI Chandigarh. But Bant Singhsuccumbed to his injuries on 16.02.2016. Theaccident was witnessed by him. FIR No.09dated 16.02.2016, under Sections 279,304-A,337,338,427 of IPC was registered at PoliceStation Cheema on his statement vide Ex.C1.He categorically testified that the accident wascaused due to the rash and negligent driving ofthe above said vehicle. 11. Having regards to the testimony of CWIDarshan Singh, which is corroborated by theFIR Ex.Cl , it is held that it stands proved thatrespondent No 1 Dharma Singh was driving theoffending vehicle in a rash and negligentmanner, due to which, he rammed his caragainst the Scooty of Bant Singh, ‘whichresulted into his ill-untimely and unfortunatedeath. 12. 11. Having regards to the testimony of CWIDarshan Singh, which is corroborated by theFIR Ex.Cl , it is held that it stands proved thatrespondent No 1 Dharma Singh was driving theoffending vehicle in a rash and negligentmanner, due to which, he rammed his caragainst the Scooty of Bant Singh, ‘whichresulted into his ill-untimely and unfortunatedeath. 12. Registration of FIR against respondent No.1is sufficient to return the findings that he wasdriving the offending Mahindera Pickup BoleroNo PB-31P-1556, in a rash and negligentmanner at the time of accident, which resultedinto accident and death of Bant Singh. On thispoint, I am fortified by the ratio of authorityGirdhari Lal Vs. Radhey Shyam and others1993(2) PLR 109, wherein it was observed bythe Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Courtthat “ when the driver was facing criminal trial,it has to be prima facie concluded that theaccident took place due to his rash andnegligent driving.” Thus, from the evidenceavailable on the record, which is corroboratedby registration of the FIR against the respondentNo.l, it stands prima facie established thataccident took place due to rash and negligentdriving of Mahindera Pick up Bolero No.PB-3IP-1566, driven by respondent No.1. Hence,issue No.1 is decided in favour of claimants andagainst the respondents.” However, while considering the pointof quantum of compensation to be awarded tothe claimants, the Tribunal has observed in paraNo. 14 as below :- “14. The respondents No. l, 2 and 3 beingdriver, owner and insurer of the offendingvehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay thecompensation to the claimants. Offendingvehicle was insured with respondent No.3,whereby it undertook to indemnify the losscaused to the vehicle or other third person.Admitted version of the claimants is thatdeceased Bant Singh was coming on Scooty No.PB-44A-9973 from Cheema to his village KotraAmru, which was situated on the right side ofroad. Jeep was going from Sunam to Cheema onthe left side of road. Deceased Bant Singh tookturn to go towards right side to go to his villageKotra Amru. It was incumbent upon him to takereasonable care and caution to cross the road.But it seems that he did not take proper care tocross the road as jeep in question was going onthe left side of road from Sunam to Cheema.Thus contributory negligence of the deceasedBant Singh is assessed as 50%. Thus claimantsare entitled to half the amount of compensationout of total amount of Rs. 6,03,000/-. Thus claimantsare entitled to half the amount of compensationout of total amount of Rs. 6,03,000/-. Hence, itis held that respondent No.3 is liable toindemnify the amount of compensation ofRs.3,01,500/- payable by respondents No.l and 2to claimants. Accordingly issue No.2 is decidedin favour of claimants and against thedefendants.” 10. In that way, it was taken to be a case of contributorynegligence. The negligence of the deceased was found to the extent of50%. Though learned counsel for the claimants has vehementlyargued that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case,more particularly, when respondent No.1--driver of the offendingvehicle had been booked in a criminal case for causing the accidentand in the written statements filed by the respondents, they haddenied involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident notspecifically taking plea of contributory negligence and they had notled any evidence in that regard, as such, the Tribunal was notjustified in returning the finding that it was a case of contributorynegligence. 11. However, learned counsel appearing for the Insurancecompany has contended that the facts and circumstances of the caseitself showed that the deceased was himself at fault in happening ofthe accident, rather accident had taken place solely on account of hiswant of care and caution. Therefore, not only the Tribunal wasjustified in taking it a case of contributory negligence, rather theclaim petition should have been dismissed by the Tribunal for thatreason. 12. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that nofault can be found with the approach of the Tribunal treating it as acase of contributory negligence, when the facts and circumstances ofthe case clearly show that the deceased was also at fault in happeningof the accident, then the Tribunal did not do anything wrong inarriving at such conclusion. But in my considered view, thenegligence attributed to the deceased to the extent of 50% issomewhat on higher side and it would be proper and appropriate totake it as 25%. It is ordered accordingly. 13. Next coming to the quantum part, the Tribunal on assessmentof the evidence brought on file by the parties had taken the age of thedeceased to be 65 years, considering his such age as entered in thepost mortem report Exhibit C-2, treating him as a labourer, hismonthly income was assessed to be Rs.6,000/-. Since his age wastaken to be 65 years, no addition was made towards future prospects,which was rightly done by the Tribunal. Since his age wastaken to be 65 years, no addition was made towards future prospects,which was rightly done by the Tribunal. Deducting 1/4th of theamount towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, thedependency of the claimants was found to be Rs.4,500/- It was sodone correctly. The annual dependency was worked out toRs.54,000/- (Rs.4,500 x 12). 14. Keeping in view the age of the deceased at the time ofaccident and in terms of the ratio of authority Smt. Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation,  2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77, the Tribunalhas rightly applied multiplier of 7. In that way, the totalcompensation came out to Rs.3,78,000/- (Rs.54,000 x 7). 15. The Tribunal was no justified in granting Rs. 1 lac toclaimant No.1 Smt. Ajmer Kaur, widow of the deceased on account ofloss of consortium and Rs. 1 lac to the claimants on account of loss oflove and affection,besides Rs.25,000/- on account of funeralexpenses. 16. In terms of ratio of authority Pranay Sethi’s case (Supra),the appellants--claimants are entitled to get Rs.15,000/- towards lossof estate, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- onfuneral expenses, totalling Rs.70,000/- towards conventional Heads. 17. Thus the total compensation comes out to Rs.3,78,000 +Rs.70,000/- = Rs. 4,48,000/-. 18. Now deducting 25% of the amount on account ofcontributory negligence of the deceased, the total compensationamount, to which the claimants are found entitled, comes out toRs.3,36,000/- (Rs.4,48,000 - Rs.1,12,000). 19. Counsel for the Insurance company has argued that majorsons and married daughters cannot be taken to be dependents uponthe deceased. 20. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has referred tojudgment Smt. Manjuri Bera vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and another,  2007 (2) RCR (Civil) 674, by the Apex Court,wherein it was observed that a legal representative is one who sufferson account of death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident andneed not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent and child. It wasfurther observed that married daughter is entitled to compensationunder Section 140 though she was not dependent on deceased father. 21. He has further referred to authority Babu Lal and others vs. D.T.C. And another 2012 (47) RCR (Civil) 335. As per facts of thatjudgment, when a housewife had died in a motor vehicle accident, theclaim petition filed by her father-in-law, mother-in-law and twosisters-in-law had been allowed. 22. The third judgment referred to was New India Assurance Co. 21. He has further referred to authority Babu Lal and others vs. D.T.C. And another 2012 (47) RCR (Civil) 335. As per facts of thatjudgment, when a housewife had died in a motor vehicle accident, theclaim petition filed by her father-in-law, mother-in-law and twosisters-in-law had been allowed. 22. The third judgment referred to was New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ashwin Vrajlal Rajgor and others 2005 ACJ 1618 . Asper facts of that judgment when a person who was a bachelor, whohad died in a roadside accident and had not left behind any heir/legalrepresentative in class I to represent his estate, brother’s son , a classII heir, and brother’s wife were taken to be legal representatives andfound entitled to compensation in the absence of any class I heir. 23. The next judgment referred by him was The New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Kuldeep Singh and others, in FAO No.5452 of 2012 decided on 2.8.2013, by a Co-ordinate Bench of thisCourt, wherein it was observed as under:- “Even if a son is major and is earning, he doesnot stop looking to his father for financial help. Itis not a case where the sons were drawing bigsalary and that they could not look to their father,who was getting petty amount. Sons even if theyare major do not lose the status of legalrepresentatives about which there is reference inSection 166 (1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, themajor sons can maintain a claim petition forcompensation on the death of their father.” 24. Therefore, the claimants and proforma respondent No.4 whowere class I heirs of the deceased, are definitely entitled to get thecompensation. 25. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.3,01,500/-,which is enhanced to Rs.3,36,000/-. The enhanced amount would beapportioned among the claimants and proforma respondent No.4, as follows :- Ajmer Kaur 40% Rajwinder Kaur 10% Gurjit Kaur 10% Darshan Singh 10% Nirmal Singh 10% Chint Kaur 20% 26. The claimants-appellants and proforma respondent No.4shall be entitled to get interest @ 7.5% per annum on the additionalcompensation from the date of filing of appeal till actual realization.The other terms and conditions shall remain the same as in theoriginal award. 27. In that way FAO 4172-2017 is allowed partly and theappeal filed by the Insurance Company bearing FAO 2242-2017stands dismissed.