Arun Madan, J.
1. The appellant-InsuranceCompany has preferred this appeal underSection 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), againstthe Award, dated 29th January, 1994, passedby Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Behrodin Civil Miscellaneous (MAC) Case No. 130/92 (34/90) whereby an Award of Rupees5,96,000/- was passed in favour of claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Aggrieved by the saidAward the appellant has preferred this appeal.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of this case are that on 30th September, 1989 at about 7.00 p.m. late Pareesh Marya was driving his Maruti Van bearing Registration No. DAJ 3013 on Behrod-Sahjahanpur road. A Truck bearing Registration No. DIG 3144 was parked in a stationary position on the national highway near Behrod 1 km. ahead of Neemrana turn. Instead of parking the truck on the footpath its driver had parked the same on the road. Since the parking lights of the truck were not on at that time and also on account of darkness the truck was not visible and as a result of which Maruti Van which was being driven by the deceased-Pareesh Marya hit the truck at its rear portion as a result of which the Maruti Van got badly damaged and driver of Maruti Van died on the spot itself. The deceased got serious injuries which proved fatal and he died on the spot. Thus, this accident occurred on account of the negligence of the truck driver, non-applicant-respondent No. 6 herein. If the truck driver had switched on the parking lights of the truck and had parked the said truck on the foot-path side of the road, then the accident could have possibly been averted.
3. In the claim petition the applicants have stated that claimant No. 1 Bela Marya aged 34 years is the wife of the deceased, while claimant No. 2 Udai Marya aged 14 years and claimant No. 3 Ku. Ashvi Marya aged 12 years (both represented through their mother and natural guardian Smt. Bela Marya) are the son and daughter of the deceased-Parish Marya respectively, while claimant No. 4 Jaswant Marya and claimant No. 5 Smt. Krishna Marya are the parents of the deceased. The claimants have further stated in the claim petition that the deceased-Parish Marya was 38 years of age as on the date of the accident. The deceased was an authorised agent of the Prominent Cement Private Ltd., and was drawing salary of Rs. 2,500/- p.m. and was also getting commission on sales. Monthly income of the deceased was thus stated to be Rs. 9,200/- and it was also stated in the claim petition that the deceased was incurring the monthly expenditure of Rs. 2,000/- on account of rent of the tenanted premises and a sum of Rs. 600/- per month towards the educational expenses of his son and daughter who were studying in Delhi Public School, Delhi, at the relevant time. Thus, the deceased was a person belonging to a higher middle income class of the society: The father of the deceased was 71 years of age while the mother was 63 years of age and both were hale and hearty. It has been further stated in the claim petition that if the deceased had not met untimely death he would have also lived and worked up to the age of 75 years. On account of accidental death of the deceased a claim of Rs. 18,00,000/- was submitted by the claimants before the Tribunal besides the damages on account of mental agony, pain and sufferings etc. for which an amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- was claimed and thus total amount of Rs. 19,70,000/- was claimed by the claimants as compensation.
4. The claim petition was contested before the Tribunal and a reply was filed on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company having its office at Gurgaon and its registered office at New Delhi (Non-applicants No. 3 and 5). It was contended by the said non-applicants that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of Shri Parish Marya (deceased) who was driving the vehicle in question which had met with an accident with the truck. It was further contended in the reply that the truck was parked on the correct side of the road and was in a stationary position and hence no liability can be fastened on them with respect to the alleged occurrence. It was further contended that as per the terms of the Insurance Policy no information of the accident was conveyed immediately to the Insurance Company as required by the terms and conditions of the policy. It was further contended in the reply that the deceased himself was the owner of the Van and was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently at the time of accident. It was further contended by the Insurance Company that it is only the imaginary presumption of the claimants that the deceased would have survived for a long span of time had he not met with the accident, hence there is no basis for the claimants to demand the compensation. Non-applicants Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. Basheer Ahmed, the Driver and Pahaloo Khan, the owner of the truck respectively were proceeded ex parte by the Tribunal since they had not appeared during the course of proceedings despite service. Since no relief was sought against the non-claimant No. 4 viz. D.D. Leasing Ltd., therefore, no order was passed against the said non-claimant No. 4. It has also been contended by the non-applicants that the amount claimed by way of compensation is contrary to the provisions of the Act. It was further contended in the reply that in such a situation if any vehicle which is in motion collides against a stationary vehicle, then it is misfortune of the driver of the vehicle who meets with the accident with the stationary /vehicle. It was also contended that the vehicle which collides with another vehicle equally has got lights and more particularly the vehicle of the Maruti Van type which has more forcible lights and even if there is any obstruction on the way the same can be stopped and if in spite of this the accident occurs, then the liability will be of the driver of the vehicle in question which meets with accident with another vehicle which is parked in stationary position. Therefore, under these circumstances no liability can be fastened on the non-petitioner No. 5, viz., the United India Insurance Company. The income of the deceased, as stated in the claim petition, is imaginary for which no documentary evidence has been placed on the record and, therefore, there is no basis for compensation.
5. In reply to para 24 to the claim petition, it has been contended by the Insurance Company that with the passage of time the longevity of life has decreased. It has been further contended that it could not be presumed that the deceased would have led a healthy life. In view of the above contentions the Insurance Company has opposed the maintainability of the claim petition by alleging therein that no liability can be fastened on the Insurance Company.
6. The above contentions have been specifically controverted by the claimants in the rejoinder filed before the Tribunal. On the basis of the pleadings the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues :--
1. Whether the accident occurred on 30-9-1989 on account of rash and negligent driving of Truck No. DIG 3144 driven by Basheer Ahmed resulting in death of Pareesh Marya?
2. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation as claimed by them from the non-claimants and if so to what amount?
3. Whether any dispute has not arisen against the non-claimants for the compensation as claimed by the claimants?
4. Whether the insured had made any violation of the rules of the Insurance Policy?
5. Whether the claim petition under the provision of Section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable?
6. Relief?
7. The learned Tribunal has observed that in support of their claim petition the claimants had led all the relevant evidence on the record. With regard to issue No. 1 the learned Tribunal recorded a specific finding to the effect that the claimants have been successful in Droving the said issue by leading substantial evidence on the record that the accident had occurred due to negligence of the driver of the truck and also as a result of the violation of the Motor Vehicles Rules. It has been further observed by the Tribunal that the truck driver had parked the truck negligently on the national highway and while parking the said truck the driver had not observed the safety regulations as envisaged under the Motor Vehicles Rules such as he had not switched on the rear lights of the truck (parking lights) as a result of which the truck could not be visible to drivers of other vehicles coming from the distance. The Tribunal has further observed that if the truck driver had observed the necessary precautions by switching on the parking lights, then the accident could have possibly been averted. In view of this finding, it was held by the Tribunal that the driver of the truck was entirely responsible for his own lapse as a result of which the accident occurred resulting in the death of Pareesh Marya.
8. With regard to issue No. 2, it has come in evidence that late Pareesh Marya was the only son and was the sole earning member of his family. Out of the wedlock the deceased had two issues i.e. Udai Marya (son) aged 14 years and Kumari Ashvi Marya (daughter) aged 12 years, who were studying in a Public School in Delhi. In this regard the certificates from the School authorities, marked as Exs. 1 and 2 respectively, were produced. The statement of claimant No. 1 Smt. Bela Marya, wife of the deceased was recorded. She has stated in her deposition that her husband was in the employment of Prominent Cement Factory, Gwalior and apart from the salary he was also drawing commission on sales from the said Company. He was getting Rs. 2,500/- as monthly salary and'was in employment since April, 1989 and was serving as Resident Sales Representative and he was paid a sum of Rs. 47,700/- towards commission on sales for a period of 3 months by the Company. In support of her deposition, she had produced the salary certificate Ex. 3 as well as the certificate in respect of Commission paid to her husband. The gross monthly emolument which the deceased was earning amounted to Rs. 9,000-10,000 approximately. She had further deposed in her statement that her husband was income-tax payee. The deposition of Smt. Bela Marya has been corroborated by Ashok Kumar A.W. 2, who was working as Accounts Manager of the Company with effect from March, 1985 and he has supported in his evidence the statement of Smt. Bela Marya by deposing to the effect that late Pareesh Marya was in employment of the Company and was getting Rs. 2,500/-per month by way of salary and was also getting the commission on sales which was proved by production of vouchers as well as the Cash-Books. On the basis of the above discussion and the evidence on the record the Tribunal has recorded a positive finding in favour of the claimants in respect of Issue No. 2 by observing that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 2,500 and he was also getting commission on sales in respect of which there is no dispute and hence admittedly it was taken as proved on the record. With regard to commission on sales since receipt indicating the payment of commission amount of Rs. 47,700/- was produced on the record vide Ex. 3, on the said basis the Tribunal to the monthly average of the said amount at Rs. 16,000/- per month and since it could not be construed as a permanent monthly income the Tribunal took the monthly average at Rs. 5,000/- i.e. 1/3rd of 16,000/- towards commission on sales. In this manner the monthly income of the deceased was taken to be Rs. 2,500 + 5,000 = 7,500/ - per month by the Tribunal. Since it had come in evidence that the deceased was incurring expenditure of Rs. 3,500/- for himself while the balance he used to contribute for the family expenditure, on the basis of the evidence on the record, the Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that the deceased must be spending Rs. 3,500/-. for his own expenditure and taking monthly income as Rs. 7,500 -- 3,500 calculated the net income of the deceased as Rs. 4,000/- per month, which it held to be justified. The Tribunal has further recorded the finding that the deceased was 38 years of age as on the date of accident and taking his annual income to be Rs. 4,000 x 12 = 48,000/-and applying the multiplier of 12 it comes to Rs. 48,000 x 12 = 5,76,000. Thus taking the life span of the deceased to be 50 years and hence the issue No. 2 was decided in favour of the claimants and against the Insurance Company.
9. With regard to issue No. 3, in view of the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issues Nos. 1 and 2, the Tribunal recorded the finding in favour of the claimants and against the non-applicants.
10. With regard to issues Nos. 4 and 5, the learned Tribunal also recorded its finding in favour of the claimants and against the non-claimants and in view of the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal, the claimants were held entitled to succeed in the claim petition and were held entitled to the Award of Rs 5,96,000/- as compensation against the non-claimants Nos. 4 and 5 viz., United India Insurance Company-appellant herein.
11. In view of the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal, I am of the opinion that while determining this compensation amount, the learned Tribunal took all the relevant aspects into consideration such as the loss of income which the deceased would have contributed to the family had he not met with untimely death, the personal loss resulting to the wife and the children as well as the parents and the mental agony, pain and sufferings such as financial status of the deceased and the monthly income and the expenditure which he was incurring for the family, financial loss caused to the dependants and on the basis of the appreciation of evidence on the record the learned Tribunal gave the Award which deserves to be sustained by this Court.
12. As against the claim of Rs. 19,70,000/-, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,96,000/-in favour of the claimants and since the claimants have already received a sum of Rs. 25,000/- by way of interim relief, they were thus entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 5,71,000/- only with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the realisation of the amount of compensation. The claim petition was dismissed in respect of non-claimants Nos. 4 and 5. The learned Tribunal further directed that out of the above compensation amount, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- shall be paid to the claimants Nos. 4 and 5 namely, Jaswant Mary a and Smt. Krishna Marya, the parents of the deceased which amount shall stand deposited in their joint savings account. The Tribunal further directed that out of the award amount Rs. 1,50,000/- each, i.e. the total amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- will be deposited in the fixed deposit separately for minor children of the deceased, namely, Udai Marya claimant No. 2 and Kumari Ashvi Marya claimant No. 3 till they attain the age of majority. The remaining amount of Rs. 2,21,000/- shall be paid to the claimant No. 1 Smt. Bela Marya, wife of thedeceased out of which Rs. 71,000/-will be deposited in her savings account, Rs. 25,000/- will be deposited for one year, Rs. 25,000/- will be deposited for a period of 2 years, Rs. 25,000/- will be deposited for a period of 3 years, Rs. 25,000/- will be deposited for a period of 4 years, Rs. 25,000/- will be deposited for a period of 5 years and Rs. 25,000/ - will be deposited for a period of 6 years in her fixed deposit account. The learned Tribunal further directed that neither any amount will be withdrawn nor any loan will be obtained from the fixed deposit accounts of the minor children without the prior permission of the Court till they attain the age of majority.
13. During the course of hearing of this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that it has come on the record that the truck was parked on 24 wide clear and straight road on 30th September, 1989 at 7.00 p.m. when the accident occurred between the Maruti Van which was being driven by the deceased Pareesh Marya and the truck in question which was parked on the road. It has been further contended by the learned counsel that the Maruti Van was coming from behind the truck and both, Maruti Van and the Truck, were supposed to go in the same direction. The Van was coming at such a speed that marks of the tyres to the extent of 59 were visible while applying the brakes by the driver of the Van. It has been further contended that the Van was being driven on extreme left side of the road and the manner and the circumstances in which the accident occurred, the driver of the Van himself was responsible for the accident, since the truck was parked in a stationary position, though it has been admitted by the learned counsel that the parking lights in the truck in question were not on and as a result of which no indication of the blinking parking lights of the truck could be conveyed to other drivers who were driving their vehicles on the highway and as a consequence of which the accident occurred resulting in the death of the Van Driver, Late Pareesh Marya.
14. This evidently means that the driver of the truck in question had parked the said vehicle in such a negligent manner on the road which is a national highway, as a result of which the accident occurred. During the course of hearing, it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the truck had to suddenly stopped on the main road due to bursting of one of its tyres and this was a mechanical fault as a consequence of which the said truck had to be parked in a stationary position. This contention of the learned counsel is not well-sounded as the same is contrary to the evidence on the record since the mechanical inspection report dated 2-10-89, prepared by the police on site inspection where the accident occurred on 30-9-89 does not indicate anywhere about the bursting of the tyre of the truck as a result of which the truck had to be parked in the stationary position. It was further contended in this regard by the learned counsel for the appellant that once the truck was in a stationary position and not in use or operation, no liability can be fastened on the Insurance Company under the Act. I am of the considered opinion that this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is also not tenable since it has admittedly come on the record that the road over which the truck was parked was 24 feet wide and straight road having footpaths, on both the sides and, therefore, the truck could safely be parked on footpath side rather than parking it on the road as a result of which the accident had occurred.
15. Perusal of the mechanical inspection report of both the vehicles which was prepared at the spot by the police of P. S. Sahjahanpur, District Alwar, in pursuance of FIR No. 158/89 under Section 279/304A IPC, does not indicate that the parking lights of the truck in question were on at the time of accident. This fact has also not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant during the course of hearing.
16. It has been further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are contrary to the evidence on the record and the learned Presiding Officer had become emotional as a result of this the findings have been recorded contrary to the contentions advanced by the non-applicants. This contention is totally devoid of merit and in my opinion the learned Tribunal has recorded well-reasoned findings by specifically observing in its judgment and award that the accident which occurred was not only for the reason of the negligent manner in which the truck was parked on the road but also on account of non-compliance of the rules of safety regulations as contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules by the driver of the truck in question. It has been further observed by the learned Tribunal in this regard that it is the driver of the truck who is to be blamed for having parked the truck in a negligent manner by not observing the Motor Vehicles Rules and further as a result of absence of parking lights and also for the reason that the reflector light (parking light) indicating that the truck was in a parked position, was also not working at the relevant time of accident. It has been further observed by the learned Tribunal that if a driver of the truck is to park a vehicle on account of some mechanical defect on the main road particularly during the night hours, he is duty bound to observe all necessary precautions for ensuring the safety of other vehicles which may be driven on the road and which were not observed in the instant case by the driver of the truck in question, as a result of which this accident occurred which could otherwise have been averted had proper pre-cautionary measure been adopted by the driver of the said truck. All the issues framed by the learned Tribunal were answered in favour of the claimants and against the non-claimants.
17. In support of his contentions advanced at the bar, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri P. S. Shukla, has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Manoj Kumar Mundi v. Hari Gopal Rao, AIR 1978 M. P. 29, Pooran Chand v. Anandibai, AIR 1975 M.P. 32 (sic), Oriental Fire & Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harakchand, 1992 ACJ 730 (Raj) and Savitri Devi v. Udaibhan, 1984 ACJ 766 (All).
18. In the matter of Manoj Kumar Mundi v. Hari Gopal Rao, AIR 1978 MP 29 (supra) altogether different questions had arisen for consideration of M. P. High Court in a dispute pertaining to landlord and the tenant on the determination of tenancy. The ratio of the said decision does not apply to the present case.
19. In the matter of Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harakchand, 1992 ACJ 730 (Raj) (supra) the question which had arisen for consideration of this Court was whether any liability could be fastened on the driver of the truck which was parked unattended on the road in dangerous position and if an accident occurs resulting in death of passengers who were travelling by the Bus with speed which dashes against the stationary vehicle, it was held by this Court that both the drivers were negligent in causing the accident and their blameworthiness being 75% for the truck driver and 25% for the bus driver, i.e. composite negligence.
20. In the matter of Savitri Devi v. Udai Bhan, 1984 ACJ 766 (All) (supra) the claimant had deposed in evidence that the back side of the truck while overtaking hit against the car and dragged the car and when truck was stopped, the car dashed against the truck and went under it. Respondents' version about the accident that the car dashed against the standing truck from behind and went under it was accepted and it was held that the car driver was rash and negligent.
21. I am of the opinion that the ratio of the aforesaid decisions do not help in advanc-ing the case of the appellant in any manner whatsoever. It will be pertinent to refer to the provisions of Sections 126 and 127 of the Act. Section 126 of the Act provides as under :--
'126. Stationary Vehicle -- No person driving or in charge of a motor vehicle shall cause or allow the vehicle to remain stationary in any public place, unless there is, in the driver's seat, a person duly licensed to drive the vehicle or unless the mechanism has been stopped and a brake or brakes applied or such other measures taken as to ensure that the vehicle cannot accidently be put in motion in the absence of the driver.'
Further Section 127 of the Act provides that where any motor vehicle is abandoned, or left unattended, on a public place for ten hours or more, its removal by a towing service may be authorised by a police officer having jurisdiction.
22. In this case it has come on the record that the offending vehicle in question, i.e. the truck was parked on the side of the road which is a national highway in a dangerous manner with no parking lights which could give indication or a warning signal to other road users regarding the truck which was lying abandoned on the road. It is as a result of this negligent manner in which the truck was parked that the driver of the Van was not able to spot the said vehicle from a distance since there was darkness on the road at about 7.00 p.m. on 30th September, 1989 when the accident took place resulting in death of Pareesh Marya the Van Driver.
23. From the perusal of the record of Tribunal which was summoned by this Court at the time of hearing, it is revealed that adequate safety measures were not adopted by the truck driver and who had also not observed the safeguards which have been provided for stationary vehicles as referred to in Sections 126 and 127 of the Act.
24. Learned counsel for the claimants, Shri S. C. Srivastava, while controverting the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, has contended at the bar that the accident had resulted on account of negligent manner in which the truck was parked by its driver on the national highway and if the driver of the truck had taken necessary pre-cautions in parking the truck and had also observed the safeguards as envisaged under Sections 126 & 127 the Act, the accident could be averted and the life of an innocent person could be saved. He has vehemently contended at the bar that the insurer i.e. the appellant, -- Insurance Company cannot defend the action in view of the provisions of Section 149 of the Act which casts statutory duty on the insurer to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third parties risk and since the truck in question was duly insured with the appellant company against third party's risk, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants and since the liability is fully covered by the terms of the insurance policy which was operative at the relevant time, the Insurance Company cannot escape its' liability to pay compensation to the claimants under the Act. He has further contended that it is the admitted position that the truck was lying abandoned on the road in absence of the driver and the vehicle cannot be accidentally put in motion in absence of the driver under Section 126 of the Act, hence the insurance company is fully liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the claimants, has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of British India Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Capt. Itbar Singh, 1958-65 ACJ 1 (sic). The question which had arisen for consideration of the Apex Court was regarding the impleadment of the insurer (Insurance Company) as against the third party's risk as a result of negligent driving of the vehicle in question. Two appeals had arisen out of the two suits which were filed against owners of motor cars for recovery of damages suffered by the plaintiff as a result of negligent driving of the cars. The owners of the cars were insured against third party risk and the insurers were subsequently added as defendants to the suit under the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. It was held by the Apex Court that the insurer cannot escape its responsibility to pay the compensation to the injured who would not have been able to recover the damages suffered by him from the person causing injuries. The loss had to fall on someone and the statute has thought it fit that it should be borne by the insurer which was held to be responsible for the loss since the loss falls on the insurer in the course of his carrying on his business of vehicles out of which he makes profit. On the other hand, if the loss falls on the injured person, it would be due to no fault of his; it would have been a loss suffered by him arising out of an accident in the happening of which he had no hand at all. It was consequently held by the Apex Court that the plain wording of Sub-section (2) of Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 should prevail and that no ground exists to adopt a contrary view and the High Court was held right in view taken by it.
25. In the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Magikhia Das, 1976 ACJ 239 : (AIR 1976 Ori 175) (FB) the question which had arisen for determination of the learned Full Bench of Orissa High Court was in respect of defences open to an insurer in respect of the liabilities arising out of the cases falling under Section 96(2) of the Act. The insured and the insurer poth had contested the claim before the Claims Tribunal fastening liability on each other. It was held by the High Court that Insurance Company can defend an action only on the grounds specified in Section 96(2) of the Act and the Insurance company can defend on other grounds in the name of insured provided the leave of the Claims Tribunal has been taken under Section 110C(2A) of the Act. While answering the reference of the single Judge, the Full Bench took the view that insurer was liable in view of the policy authorising insurer to defend in the name of the insured and the appeal filed by the insurer was consequently held not maintainable and was dismissed by the High Court.
26. In the matter of Shivaji Dayanu Patil v. Vatschala Uttam More, 1991 (2) ACJ 777 (SC) the question which had arisen for consideration of the Apex Court was in the context of Section 92A of the Act on the principle of no fault liability. In this case notwithstanding the casual connection between the accident and the explosion and fire in the tanker and since accident arose out of the use of motor vehicle, the claimant was held entitled to compensation under Section 92 A of the Act. It was held that the collusion and escape of petrol from the tanker which ultimately resulted in the explosion and fire were not unconnected but related events. It was further held that while interpreting the beneficial legislation the Court should adopt a construction which advances the purpose underlying the enactment in preference to a construction which tends to defeat that purpose.
27. In the matter of United Indian Fire & Gen. Insurance Company Ltd. v. Lakshmi Shori Ganjoo, 1982 ACJ 470 : (AIR 1982 J. & K. 105) (FB) (J. & K.), it was held by the learned Full Bench of J. & K. High Court as under :--
'The insurer is not entitled to resist the award, where the insured has been found liable, on the ground not enumerated under Section 96(2) of the Act except in cases where the terms of the policy of insurance provides that the insurer has the right to defend the action in the name of the insured and if it appears that the claimant and the insured have collided, then after receiving permission of the Tribunal under Section 110C (2A) the insurer can defend the claim as well as the award on all grounds which are/ available to the insured'.
28. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, examined their rival claims and contentions as well as the legal position at issue. I am of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal has recorded well reasoned finding in awarding the compensation amount in favour of the claimants and as against the appellant, Insurance Company and the judgment and award of the learned Tribunal deserves to be upheld.
29. In the result, I find to merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. The order dated 29th January, 1994 whereby an Award has been passed by the learned Tribunal (MACT) in favour of the claimants is affirmed with modification in the said order only with respect to condition No. 3 regarding payment of compensation amount of Rs. 2,21,000/- to claimant No. 1 Smt. Bela Marya. Instead of making payment of the said amount to claimant No. 1 in the manner as directed by learned Tribunal the same shall be payable to her in lump-sum by way of draft in her favour. The Award is modified to this extent with a view to mitigate the hardship which may arise to the claimants with a view that this compensation amount may be utilised by her for meeting necessary expenditure to be incurred for the welfare and upkeep of the minor children besides herself and her in-laws, i.e., the parents of the deceased. The parties are left to bear their own costs. The record of the learned Tribunal be sent back immediately.