1. This miscellaneous appeal under section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company, assailing the award dated 31st March, 2011 passed by Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Datia in Claim Case No. 05/2011; whereby, an amount of Rs. 2,52,500/- has been awarded to respondents No. 1 to 5/Claimants for death of their mother, who died in road accident dated 24.8.2010.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that on the fateful date of 24.8.2010 at about 3 pm, Fundibai (deceased mother of Claimants) was going on by the side of road. Suddenly, at Janshi-Kanpur, near village Baretha, the driver of offending truck bearing registration No. UP-93-T4544,driving the same in rash and negligent manner dashed the deceased,due to which she died on spot. Therefore, claimants filed a claim case before the Claims Tribunal under section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 claiming Rs. 7,35,000/- as compensation for the death of their mother.

3. Claims Tribunal after framing issues, recorded evidence and after appreciation of the same, by impugned award, awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,52,500/- to the claimants for death of their mother.

4. As per the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company, deceased was aged about 55 years and the claim case was moved on behalf of her major sons and daughter and in light of decision of this Court in the matter of Champabai and ors v. Bajpai Road Lines and others, 2005 ACJ 65, major sons and daughter are not dependents upon her and therefore, they are not entitled to receive the compensation and therefore, Claims Tribunal erred in awarding the compensation. It is further submitted that in light of decision of Hon'ble apex Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Keshav Bahadur and ors., 2004 ACJ 648, penal interest cannot be levied in default of payment of compensation within a specific period as held by Claims Tribunal that in lieu of default of making payment of compensation within specified period the penal interest @ 9% would be applicable in place of 7.5%. It is further submitted that if a married daughter filed a claim case as legal representative she cannot be termed as not dependent on deceased and she is only entitled to ex gratia payment of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants submits that as far as the income of the deceased is concerned, there is ample evidence on record that deceased Fundibai was engaged in the business of making wooden articles like Sup, Daliya etc and by doing so used to earn Rs. 3-4 thousand per month. Therefore, Claims Tribunal did not err in assessing the income of the deceased to Rs. 3,000/- per month. It is also amply proved that the deceased used to live with the claimants and used to share her income with them. Learned counsel for the claimants also prayed for enhancement of compensation as according to him, no amount has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal under the head future prospects.

6. Heard.

7. The main thrust of the arguments as raised by learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is that since claimants-sons daughter of the deceased are major, they are not entitled for any compensation.

8. From perusal of appeal memo it is clear there are five claimants out of which four are major sons and one is daughter. Daughter is married. Claimant No. 5 is a boy of 20 years.

9. The evidence of Chandrashekhar (PW/1) is unrebutted. It is amply proved that the deceased used to live with the claimants and used to share her income with them. It is not uncommon that deceased and claimants were living together and therefore, she must have been spending some amount on claimants also and therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of this witness. In this respect, reference can be made to Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Anr., AIR 1987 SC 1690. In wh