JUDGMENT : N.N. Mithal, J.—A young man of 22 years of age was knocked down to from his scooter and crushed to death by a Bus belonging to the appellant. A claim for compensation of Rs. 1,75,300/- was made against which the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 38,009/-. Aggrieved by the decision the Corporation has come up in appeal. 2. Sri S.K. Sharma, appearing for the appellant, contended that the findings of the claims Tribunal fixing the responsibility on the appellant was not based on proper appreciation of evidence and that the amount of compensation awarded was also excessive. 3. According to the case of the claimant, the deceased was coming on a Scooter on the Yamuna bridge from Naini side to Allahabad at about 6.45 in the morning. The Bus hit him from behind as result of which he fell down and was entangled in the bumper of the Bus and was crushed to death. The case of the appellant was that the Bus was going at a moderate speed but the deceased tried to over take the Bus from left side as soon as it came in front of it he found Rikshaw and his scooter hit against the Rikshaw in the process the deceased fell down from the Scooter and was crushed. Negligence and rashness in driving was denied. 4. The claims Tribunal has looked into the entire evidence led by parties which consists of two eye-witnesses from the claimant's side and testimony of the driver, conductor and an independent witness from the side of the appellant. Both the witnesses for the claimant has consistently stated that first the Scooter had over-taken then and thereafter the Bus had followed. This part of their testimony has been believed by the Tribunal and it totally rules out any possibility of the scooter trying to overtake the Bus from left side. Statement of the driver has not been believed for valid and proper reason recorded by the Tribunal and apparently the conductor was hardly in a position to state anything about the manner in which the accident took place The independent witness was unworthy of reliance because his very presence as a passenger of the Bus is doubtful. Statement of the driver has not been believed for valid and proper reason recorded by the Tribunal and apparently the conductor was hardly in a position to state anything about the manner in which the accident took place The independent witness was unworthy of reliance because his very presence as a passenger of the Bus is doubtful. Learned Counsel for the appellant has not been able to show me any material on the basis of which it could be said that the findings recorded by the trial court in this regard were erroneous or not based on evidence. In the circumstances, agreeing with the Tribunal, it is held that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the Bus driver. 5. It is next urged that the amount of compensation awarded is excessive. According to the learned Counsel the deceased was carrying on cloth business on a shop and the business till continues and there has been no decrease in the earnings from the said shop. It is, therefore, urged that no pecuniary loss has been suffered by the family members on account of the deceased dying a the accident. It may, however, be noticed that at the time when the deceased was carrying on business in the shop he was simultaneously getting education and naturally he must be devoting part of his time at the shop. His other brothers at that time were not involved in the business and had to fill the void created due to death of Subhash Chandra-(deceased). In case Subhash Chandra had not met the accident be would have continued to sit at the shop while his younger brother, who now sits at the shop in his place, might have put sued his study or may have engaged himself in some other business. From which he would have earned a separate living. On account of accident, however, Subhash Chandra has been removed from the scene and his brothers have to sit at the shop. It cannot, therefore, legitimately, be argued that no pecuniary loss has been caused to the family on account of death of Subhash Chandra. The mere fact that the income from the shop continues to remain the same as it when was the other brother was alive does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the family had not suffered any pecuniary loss. 6. The mere fact that the income from the shop continues to remain the same as it when was the other brother was alive does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the family had not suffered any pecuniary loss. 6. The claims Tribunal has found that the deceased was contributing Rs. 200/- p m. to the family. After adjusting some amount which probably was being spent by him on self the family dependency has been determined at Rs. 150/- p m. Parents were aged about 40 years at the time of accident and the normal expectancy of life is 60 years. If Subhash Chandra had been alive he would have supported them during this period It is no doubt true that the deceased was unmarried and in due course of time he was likely to get married when his responsibilities also would have been increased. However, it was also likely that in the coming years his income from the shop would also have increased and dependency of the family would have remained almost the same. On account of marriage, therefore, no dent was likely to be made in the support which he was giving to it. Thus capitalising the dependency of the family at the rate of Rs. 150/- p m. the total comes to Rs. 36,000/- which has wrongly been calculated by the Tribunal at Rs. 40,000/-Making suitable deductions on account of lump sum nature of payment the Tribunal has arrived at the figure of Rs. 28000/- by way of compensation Apart from this Rs. 10,000/- has been awarded on account of mental agony and sufferings on account of the death of the young son and, therefore in all Rs. 38,000/- has been awarded, which in the opinion of the court, was the proper amount of compensation. 7. It has next been urged that the brothers are not entitled to any compensation as they were not dependent. It is also urged that the deceased was under no obligation to support and maintain his brothers which was the responsibility only of the parents. In Gujrat State Road Transport Corporation Ahmedabad v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Anr. 1 (1987) 3 SC 234 Supreme Court has held that: Brother of a person who dies in a motor vehicle accident is entitled to maintain a petition u/s 110-A of the Act if he is a legal representative of the deceased. In Gujrat State Road Transport Corporation Ahmedabad v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Anr. 1 (1987) 3 SC 234 Supreme Court has held that: Brother of a person who dies in a motor vehicle accident is entitled to maintain a petition u/s 110-A of the Act if he is a legal representative of the deceased. In the present case when the parents are alive the brothers will not be the legal representatives according to the provisions of personal law applicable to him and, as such brothers are not entitled to any amount by way of compensation. The Claim Tribunal has, however, awarded a sum of Rs. 18,000/-out of the total compensation to the brothers for being distributed equally amongst them. This part of the award appears to be erroneous. 8. In the result the award of the Tribunal is modified to the appeal that while the claim will remain decreed for Rs. 38,000/- the entire amount would be payable to the father and mother of the deceased and no part of it would be payable to the brothers. Subject to above modification the appeal fails and it accordingly dismissed. There will however, be no order as to costs.