JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. 1. This appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 12.4.2018 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal 1st, Jodhpur ('the Tribunal'), whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 13,71,229/- as compensation to the claimants alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application. 2. The application for compensation was filed by the wife and three sons of deceased - Babu Lal inter-alia with the averments that the deceased was driving motorcycle from Aau to Bhujasar, when at about 2:30 p.m., the offending vehicle RJ-21-GA-3131 being driven rashly and negligently, struck the motorcycle, resulting in, grievous injuries to Babu Lal, to which, he succumbed on 21.10.2011. It was claimed that deceased was aged 58 years, and getting monthly pension of Rs. 17,926/-, the claimants were dependent on him. Based on the said averments compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,01,01,520/- was claimed. Mother of the deceased was impleaded as respondent No. 3. 3. The application was contested by the driver/owner denying the averments made in the application. 4. The Insurance Company also filed a reply and contested the application. 5. The Tribunal framed four issues. On behalf of the claimants, two witnesses were examined and 20 documents were exhibited. On behalf of the non-claimants, no evidence was led. 6. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by driver of the Truck - Tata 407. The issue pertaining to the objections raised by Insurance Company was decided against it as no evidence was led. 7. While accessing the quantum of compensation the Tribunal relying on the judgment of the case of Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr:, (2009) 6 S.C.C. 121 : 2019 (2) T.A.C. 677 and National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Ors., A.I.R. 2017 S.C. 5157 : 2017 (4) T.A.C. 673, and applying deduction to the extent of 1/3rd assessed the amount of compensation at Rs. 13,71,229/- and ordered compensation to be distributed among the claimants whereby, the wife was awarded bulk of the compensation i.e. to the tune of Rs. 10,21,229/-, the children were awarded Rs. 50,000/- each and the mother was awarded Rs. 1,50,000/-. 8. 13,71,229/- and ordered compensation to be distributed among the claimants whereby, the wife was awarded bulk of the compensation i.e. to the tune of Rs. 10,21,229/-, the children were awarded Rs. 50,000/- each and the mother was awarded Rs. 1,50,000/-. 8. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal committed grave error in awarding huge compensation, inasmuch as, the three sons of the deceased were all major aged 32 years, 29 years and 27 years, respectively, and were all well settled in life and, therefore, the award impugned deserves modification to the said extent. 9. Learned Counsel for the claimants vehemently opposed the submissions. It was submitted that the Tribunal has taken into consideration the said aspect and has provided for deduction by taking into consideration the wife and mother being dependent on the deceased and the children have not been taken as dependents. The deduction has not been provided based on the said aspect and, therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal on that count does not call for any interference.. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellant in rejoinder made submissions that though deduction has not be provided taking into consideration three major children, they have been awarded Rs. 50,000/- each which is beyond their entitlement. 11. I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 12. The presence of major children, who it is proved on record are not dependent on the deceased, as claimants can only affect the deduction based on the number of dependents. 13. So far as the total quantum of compensation is concerned, the same is not affected on account of the status of the claimants. 14. The Tribunal while providing for deduction based on personal expenses, has only taken into consideration the wife and mother of the deceased and has not taken into consideration the three major children and, therefore, the addition of the major children as claimants, does not affect the quantum of the award at all. 15. So far as the aspect pertaining to providing Rs. 50,000/- each to the three sons by the Tribunal is concerned, to the said extend, the loss is that of the mother and if she has no grievance, the appellant-Insurance Company cannot make many grievance on that count. 16. 15. So far as the aspect pertaining to providing Rs. 50,000/- each to the three sons by the Tribunal is concerned, to the said extend, the loss is that of the mother and if she has no grievance, the appellant-Insurance Company cannot make many grievance on that count. 16. In view thereof, no case for interference in the award impugned is made out. The appeal has no substance. The same is, therefore, dismissed.