JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal, stands directed, by the aggrieved appellant herein, against the award pronounced, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., upon, MAC Petition No. 30-J/13/12, whereunder, compensation amount comprised, in, a sum of Rs.13,72,000/- along with interest accrued thereon, at the rate of 9% per annum, commencing, from, the date of petition till realization thereof, stood, assessed, vis-a-vis, the claimants, and, the apposite indemnificatory liability thereof, was, fastened in 50% proportion thereof, upon, the appellant herein, whereas, the liability qua the remaining, proportion of 50% compensation amount, hence, was fastened, upon, the driver of the motorcycle, upon, whose pillion, the deceased was astride, (ii) whereas, through cross-objections bearing No.100 of 2018, the claimants, hence, assail the fastening, of, the apposite indemnificatory, in 50%, vis-a-vis, compensation amount, upon, the driver of the motorcycle, upon,whose pillion, the deceased was hence astride. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended with much vigour, before this Court (i) that the afore burdening of the apposite indemnificatory liability, vis-a-vis, afore assessed compensation amount, vis-a-vis, the dependents, of, the deceased, is, ridden with a gross inherent fallacy, (ii) sparked by the factum qua the learned tribunal, not, meteing deference, to the statements, of, the RWs concerned, (iii) wherein, they rendered testifications qua the relevant collision, which occurred inter se the bus owned by the HRTC, and, driven at the relevant time, by respondent No.5 herein, namely, Shashi Paul, and, the motor cycle, upon, whose pillion, the deceased Lakhan Pal was astride, being, a, sequel of rash, and, negligent manner of driving, of the afore motorcycle, by its driver. The learned Tribunal, omitting to mete deference, to the apposite FIR, embodied in Ex.PW1/A, wherein, there is an attribution of negligence, to the driver of the motorcyle, upon, whose pillion, the deceased was astride. On the other hand, the crossobjectors/ respondents No.1 to 4 herein, through, cross-objections bearing No. 100 of 2018, contested the afore manner, of, fastening of the indemnificatory liability, in, the afore proportionate per centum, both upon the appellant herein, and, the driver of the motorcycle,upon, whose pillion, the deceased at the relevant time, hence, was astride. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter, the afore submission of the learned counsel for the appellant herein, is rudderless, whereas, the submission of the learned counsel appearing, for the cross-objectors, rather has vigour. 3. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter, the afore submission of the learned counsel for the appellant herein, is rudderless, whereas, the submission of the learned counsel appearing, for the cross-objectors, rather has vigour. 3. Even though, PW-1 has proven FIR embodied in Ex.PW1/A, and, therein through occur (s) an ascription, of, negligence, vis-a-vis, the driver of the motor cycle, upon, whose pillion, the deceased, at the relevant time, hence was astride. However, the afore ascription, echoed therein, cannot, at this stage, hold any persuasive sway, with this Court, imminently with Tarsem, who lodged the FIR, not stepping into the witness box, nor the appellant eliciting the entire record, appertaining to the investigation (s) carried, vis-a-vis, the afore FIR, more particularly, the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer, with clear portrayals therein, vis-a-vis, the driver of the bus concerned, or the driver of the motorcycle, upon whose pillion, the deceased, at the relevant time, hence was astride, rather occupying the appropriate or the inappropriate side of the road, (i) whereas, only upon adduction into evidence, of, the afore evidence, would enable, the learned counsel for the appellant, to contend, that, given the afore ascriptions, of, penal inculpability, vis-a-vis, the driver of the motorcycle, upon, whose pillion, at the relevant time, the deceased astride, (ii) hence, the tesitifications rendered by respondents' witnesses, being amenable, for, credence being meted thereto. However, when the afore evidence remained unadduced, thereupon, the mere occurrence, of, the afore echoings, in the afore FIR, are inconsequential, hence for affording any latitude, for, the counsel for the appellant, to contend that the driver of the motorcycle, upon, whose pillion, the deceased was astride, at the relevant time, being the solitary tortfeasor, nor he can contend that the fastening of the apposite indemnificatory liability, in, a proportion, of, 50 per centum, upon, the appellant herein, hence, being ridden, with, any gross infirmity. Contrarily, even though, the claimants' evidence, vis-a-vis, the negligence of the driver of the offending bus or of the driver of the afore motorcycle, is not, an ocular version qua the afore factum. Contrarily, even though, the claimants' evidence, vis-a-vis, the negligence of the driver of the offending bus or of the driver of the afore motorcycle, is not, an ocular version qua the afore factum. Nontheless, when emergence of the best evidence, vis-a-vis, the afore factum probandum, has remained, unadduced, also has remained unelicited, thereupon, an adverse inference is to be drawn, against, the appellant, (iii) whereupon, it is invincible to conclude that the driver of the offending bus, was, the solitary tortfeaser, in the occurrence, of, acollision inter se the offending bus, driven by respondent No.5 herein, and, the motorcycle, upon, whose pillion, the deceased at the relevant time, hence was astride. 4. Even if, the afore pleadings were reared by the respondents in their replies, instituted to the claim petition, yet when thereafter, upon, the contentious pleadings of the parties, the learned tribunal rather proceeded, to record an order, hence, formulating the issues, and, the order formulating issues, rendered on 21.11.2014, making, rather disclosures qua after, striking of issues, by the learned tribunal concerned, theirs being readover, and, explained, to the contesting litigants, and, theirs claiming qua no other issue arising hence for determination nor being claimed to be struck, (i) thereupon, the appellant, is, concluded to acquiesce, vis-a-vis, the issues formulated by the learned tribunal, and also qua their rather comprising, the, only enjoined to be formulated issues, (ii) and, further sequel thereof being, that, when for want of, formulation, of, requisite issues, appertaining to the ill-fated mishap, being, a, sequel of contributory negligence, vis-a-vis, the driver of the offending bus, and, the driver of the motorcycle, upon, whose pillion, the deceased was astride, nor when obviously prior thereto, neither, the driver of the motorcycle was arrayed, as, a contesting party, nor the insurer, if any, of the motorcycle, stood, arrayed, as a correspondent in the array of the respondents, (iii) thereupon, the attraction, of, the principle of contributory negligence, and, fastening of the indemnificatory liability, in a proportionate per centum by the learned tribunal, upon, the appellant, and, upon, the driver of the motorcycle, upon, whose pillion the deceased, was astride, hence is both unbefitting, and, legally in sagacious. 5. 5. Moreover, the quantification, of damages, by the learned Tribunal in a sum of Rs.1 lac , vis-a-vis, the claimants, (i) under the head, “Funder Charges, other ceremonies, pain, loss and suffering”, (ii) and quantification, of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, vis-a-vis, the claimants, under the head, “Loss of estate””, as also quantification, of, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, under the head, “Loss of love and affection” is in, conflict with the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 , (iii) wherein, it has been expostulated, that reasonable figures, under conventional heads, namely, loss to estate, loss of consortium, vis-a-vis, the widow of the deceased, and, funeral expenses being quantified only upto Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/-, and Rs.15,000/- respectively. Accordingly, in addition to the amount of Rs.9,72,000/-, as assessed by the learned tribunal under the head “loss dependency”, the claimants, are, entitled under conventional heads, namely, loss to estate, and, funeral expenses, sums of Rs.15,000/-, and Rs.15,000/- respectively, as such, the total compensation to which the petitioners are entitled comes to Rs.9,72,000/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/-= Rs.10,02,000/- (Rs. Ten lacs, two thousand only). Since, there is no surviving spouse of the deceased, hence, no assessment can be made under the head, “loss of consortium”. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the insurer is partly allowed, and, the cross-objections instituted by the claimants/cross-objectors are also allowed, and, the impugned award, is, in the aforesaid manner, hence modified. Accordingly, the petitioners, are, held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.10,02,000/-, along with interest @ 9 %, commencing, from, the date of petition till the date, of, deposit, of the compensation amount. The aforesaid compensation amount shall be paid only by the appellant herein, i.e. Himachal Road Transport Corporation. The amount of interim compensation, if awarded, be adjusted in the aforesaid compensation amount, at the time of final payment. Out of the aforesaid compensation amount, claimants No.1 Smt. Meeran Devi, being the mother of the deceased, and, claimant No.2 Rakesh Kumar, father of the deceased shall be entitled, to 80 % of the compensation amount, in equal share, and, the remaining 20% of the compensation amount, be apportioned in equal shares amongst claimants No.3 and 4. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.