Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, J.: - This appeal has been preferred by Smt. Kirpa against the award dated 24.03.2014, vide which palpably a less compensation was awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palwal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in respect of death of deceased Lekh Raj who was son of the appellant.

2. The accident took place on 21.12.2010 at 5:30 PM when Lekh Raj (deceased) along with his wife Smt. Roop Rani was going on his motorcycle from Hathin to village Meerpur Korali. Smt. Roop Rani (wife of the deceased) was pillion rider. When he reached near village Kot near Bilal Dharam Kanta, in the meanwhile, the offending motorcycle came from opposite side in a rash and negligent manner. The same was being driven by respondent No.1 with a high speed without following the traffic rules and the said motorcycle directly hit the motorcycle of Lekh Raj (deceased). Lekh Raj and his wife fell down on the road and sustained multiple grievous injuries. Lekh Raj died on the spot. They were shifted to General Hospital, Palwal by Satish Kumar. Ramjeet was following them on a separate motorcycle. Lekh Raj was declared to be brought dead in the hospital. It was asserted by the claimants that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. A criminal case was registered against him.

3. The claim petition was filed by the appellant along with Smt. Roop Rani (widow of the deceased) and Jai Raj minor son of the appellant. The claim petition was clubbed with other claim petitions filed by Jameel and Rafiq.

4. The Tribunal after framing necessary issues held that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 causing death of Lekh Raj and injuries to Rafiq and Jameel. Under issues No.3 and 4, it was held that the driving licence of respondent No.1 was valid and effective at the time of accident. Insurance Company could not lead any evidence that the vehicle was being driven in violation of any terms and conditions of insurance policy at the relevant time. The claim petition was found to be maintainable. In the claim petition filed by the appellant along with widow of the deceased and minor son of the appellant, the Tribunal held that the deceased was 27 years of age as per postmortem report Ex.P7 claimed by the claimants. The date of birth of the deceased as per school leaving certificate was found to be 20.04.1979. In this way the age of the deceased was assessed to be 31-32 years at the time of accident. As per Tilak Raj, Clerk, Government High School, Meerpur Korlali (PW 7), salary certificate of the deceased Ex.P6 was proved in which his gross salary was shown to be Rs.27,300/- per month. As per Haryana Government Policy, the widow was held entitled to get full salary till the age of superannuation of the deceased husband and thereafter, she is entitled to family pension. Claimant Smt. Roop Rani i.e. widow of the deceased had got re-married with one Devi Lal and has also given birth to a child from the second marriage as per depositions of Smt. Kirpa (PW 2) and Roshan Lal, Namberdar (PW 6) and she is living happy life. The Tribunal held that the claimant No.2 being brother of the deceased cannot be held to be dependent. Only appellant was held to be legal heir of deceased Lekh Raj and the Tribunal awarded a consolidated amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation to the appellant.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal ought to have assessed the total amount of compensation payable to the heirs and thereafter, the payable compensation in favour of the appellant should have been worked out. Apparently, the deceased was 31-32 years of age at the time of accident and was employed in the school against salary of Rs.27,300/- per month. Keeping in view the ratio laid down in Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others, [2013(4) Law Herald (SC) 3006 : 2013(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2274 (SC)] : 2013(3) RCR (Ci