( 1 ) THE application was filed by the present appellants for compensation of Rs. 1 25 0 in respect of the death of one Mrr M. R. Kunchu who was the husband of appellant no. 1 (applicant no. 1) and father of appellants nos. 2 and 3 (applicants nos. 2 and 3 ). In the application respondent no. 4 (opponent No. 4) was impleaded as a party on the ground that she was dependent on the deceased and was permanently staying with him and his family though she did not have the status of wife in the eye of law while respondents nos. 5 and 6 (opponents nos. 5 and 6) were the sons of opponent no. 4 and were said to be dependent on the deceased and respondent no. 7 (opponent no. 7) was the mother of the deceased while the driver owner and insurer of motor truck bearing no. G. T. B. 5036 involved in the accident were joined as opponents nos. 1 2 and 3 (present respondents nos. 1 2 and 3) respectively.

( 2 ) AFTER bearing the parties the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that true applicants and opponents nos. 4 5 6 and 7 are entitled to compensation of Rs. 84000. 00 i. e. Rs. 81 0 for the loss of dependency benefits and Rs. 3 0 as conventional amount for the loss to the estate. The learned Tribunal held opponents nos. 1 2 and 3 jointly and severally liable for the amount awarded. Out of this amount awarded the Tribunal ordered that the amount shall he apportioned between the applicants and opponents nos. 4 to 7 in the proportion of 2:9 for each of applicant no. 1 and opponent. 4 and 1:9 for each of the applicants nos. 2 and 3 and opponents nos. 5 6 and 7. Thus the Tribunal divided the amount in 9 units giving units each to applicant no. 1 and opponent no. 4 and 1 unit each to the children and mother of the deceased.

( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by the said order the original applicants have come in appeal. T heir contention is that original opponents nos. 4 5 and 6 not being the legal representatives nor the heirs of the deceased are not entitled to any compensation and therefore the entire compensation awarded should have been distributed between applicants and opponent no. 7. It is the contention that opponent no. 4 was merely residing with opponent no. 7. the brother of the deceased to lock after her and opponents nos. 5 and 6 being the children of opponent no. 4 they have no connection with the deceased and therefore the amount awarded to them was not justified.

( 4 ) AFTER this appeal was filed respondent no. 1 (original opponent no. 1) filed cross objections. Mr. B. R. Shah. learned Advocate for opponents nos. 1 and 3 merely argued about the point of negligence and did not dispute the right of the applicants or other dependents of the deceased to claim compensation because that dispute is between the applicants and opponents nos. 4 to 7 inter se. [his Lordship after discussing the evidence dismissed the cross-objection with cost: His Lordship further observed:]

( 5 ) THEN comes the question about the dispute inter se between the applicants and opponents nos. 4 5 and 6. One thing cannot be ingored and it is that aspect on which Mr. R. N. Shah learned Advocate for opponents nos. 4 to 7 has laid great stress and it is that the applicants themselves have impleaded opponents nos. 4 5 and 6 in the petition. Opponent no. 4 being a destitute woman on the mercy of the deceased and opponents nos. 4 and 5 being her sons and opponent no. 7 being the mother of the deceased at Kerala did not appear before the Tribunal at Baroda to give evidence. Whatever evidence was available to the Tribunal was from the deposition given by applicant no. 1 and her cross examination so far as the point of present dispute is concerned. In application Ex. 1 in para 1 it is categorically mentioned that opponents nos. 4 to 7 are also dependent on the deceased and therefore they are put as formal opponents. Even in para 2 it is specifically mentioned that opponent no. 4 is dependent on the deceased though she is not having the status of the wife in the eye