JUDGMENT : I.A. No. 6492 of 2020 This interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer to direct the appellant for publication of the notice on the respondent no. 1 at her present address as mentioned in paragraph 1 of the application for ends of justice. Perusal of the record reveals that the notice has validly been served upon respondent no. 1 in terms of the order dated 17.08.2021 on 21.09.2021 as per the report available in the record, the notice has been personally received by the her. Since the notice has validly been served upon respondent no. 1, this court is of the considered view that there is no justification for again publishing the contents of the notice to the respondent no. 1 in the newspaper. Accordingly, this interlocutory application being without any merit is dismissed. This interlocutory application is disposed of accordingly. M.A. No. 28 of 2013 Heard the learned senior counsel for the appellant. Though the notice has validly been served upon the respondents but no one turns up on behalf of the respondents in spite of repeated calls, hence, this appeal is heard ex-parte. As this appeal involves a simple question of law, hence, this appeal is disposed of at the stage of admission itself. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 22.05.2012 passed by learned District Judge-I-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Pakur in MACT Case No. 03 / 2011 whereby and where under, the learned tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,80,000/- as compensation for death of the deceased son of the appellant who is the husband of respondent no. 1. 3. The brief facts of this case is that while the deceased-Motilal Sah, aged about 24 years, who was working as a Khalasi in a dumper, was riding a motorcycle, met with an accident and was ran over by the offending dumper due to rash and negligent driving of the driver dumper. The Learned tribunal in the impugned judgment and award has directed that out of total compensation amount of Rs.6,80,000/-, Rs.5,00,000/- be paid to the respondent no. 1 being the wife of the deceased and Rs.1,80,000/- to be paid to the appellant. The reason assigned by learned tribunal for giving more amount of compensation to the wife of the deceased-being the respondent no. 1 being the wife of the deceased and Rs.1,80,000/- to be paid to the appellant. The reason assigned by learned tribunal for giving more amount of compensation to the wife of the deceased-being the respondent no. 1 is that the appellant-who is the mother of the deceased was earning from her labour work while the wife of the deceased-respondent no. 1 is a widow of 22 years and she has long life to go hence, the wife was awarded more amount than the appellant-mother of the deceased, though both the wife of the deceased-respondent no. 1 and the appellant mother both are class I-heirs of the deceased under the Schedule in terms of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 4. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that the only grievance of the appellant is that the appellant should have been given 50% of the compensation amount i.e. Rs.3,40,000/- with interest thereon @ 9%, as awarded by the tribunal. It is next submitted by learned senior counsel that though learned tribunal itself has taken into account the fact that both the appellant and the respondent no. 1, being the mother and wife respectively of the deceased, are the only two class I heirs of the deceased-Moti Lal Saha, yet instead of apportioning the quantum of compensation as Rs.3,40,000/- each, learned tribunal erred by awarding Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondent no. 1-the wife and Rs.1,80,000/- to the appellant, hence, it is submitted that the impugned judgment and award be set aside and the insurance company be directed to pay Rs.3,40,000/- to the appellant. It is fairly submitted by Mr. Sharma that in the meanwhile, the respondent no. 4 insurance company has already paid compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest as awarded to the respondent no. 1. 5. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar the only point for determination that crop up in this appeal, is that : “Whether the learned tribunal erred in apportionment of the quantum of compensation between the appellant-mother and the respondent no. 1-the wife of the deceased?” 6. 1. 5. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar the only point for determination that crop up in this appeal, is that : “Whether the learned tribunal erred in apportionment of the quantum of compensation between the appellant-mother and the respondent no. 1-the wife of the deceased?” 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the fact remains in the instant case that the wife has lost her husband at the very young age of 22 years whereas the mother is an aged lady and Mr. Sharma, learned senior counsel for the appellant is unable to tell the exact age of appellant but it is not disputed that she is also having her own independent earning. Usually while awarding the compensation to the claimants, major portion of the compensation amount is awarded in favour of the wife and only 15-25 % of the compensation is awarded in favour of mother of the deceased and as in the instant case, Rs.5,00,000/- has been awarded in favour of the wife whereas Rs.1,80,000/- has been awarded in favour of the appellant–mother. Thus, the apportionment of the compensation amount, made by the tribunal is in accordance with law, as the wife has to live her remaining life as a widow and the compensation amount will take care of her financial security. 7. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that no error has been committed by learned tribunal in apportioning the quantum of compensation between the appellant-mother and the respondent no. 1-the wife of the deceased. Accordingly the sole point for determination is answered negatively. 8. In view of the findings of the sole point of determination, this Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in this appeal, accordingly, this appeal is dismissed ex-parte but without costs. 9. No order as to costs. 10. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith.