JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - Shri Om Parkash husband of Smt. Sheela Devi and his minor daughter Miss Niru, have filed the present appeal and it has been directed against the judgment dated 5.1.1988, passe by the MACT, Rohtak, which awarded a sum of Rs. 28,000/- to Ms Niru by way of compensation for the death of Smt. Sheela Devi along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till payment. 2. The accident in this case took place on 8.12.1986 near Kherdi Kilanga Turning between the bus of Haryana Roadways HYR-6077 and three-wheeler/Tempo in which the deceased was travelling along with her husband Shri Om Parkash. 3. A sum of Rupees three lacs was claimed by way of compensation. 4. Notice of the claim petition was given to the respondents who denied the allegations. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the accident in question took place owing to the rash and negligent driving of offending bus No. HYR-6077, being driven by Balwant Singh respondent No. 3 ? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled and from whom ? OPP 3. Relief. 5. The parties led evidence in support of their case and on the conclusion of the proceedings, it was held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Balwant Singh, driver of the Bus. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 28,000/- by way of compensation to Miss Niru along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 6. Being not satisfied with the award, the present appeal has been filed by appellants. 7. I have heard Shri Ashish Kapoor, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellants and Shri Yash Pal, AAG, Haryana, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 8. It is proved on the record that Smt. Sheela Devi was working as J.B.T. Teacher and she was getting a salary of Rs. 1100/- per month. It is also proved on the record that at the time of the death she was 31 years old as is clear from the post mortem report. The income of the deceased has been proved by the statement of PW-6 Shri Puran Chand, Assistant, working in the office of SDEO, Loharu. 9. 1100/- per month. It is also proved on the record that at the time of the death she was 31 years old as is clear from the post mortem report. The income of the deceased has been proved by the statement of PW-6 Shri Puran Chand, Assistant, working in the office of SDEO, Loharu. 9. Unfortunately, in this case Shri Om Parkash appellant did not appear in the witness box to depose about the dependency of the claimants vis-a-vis the deceased. Miss Niru also did not appear in the witness box. In fact nobody appeared in the witness box to say what was the dependency of the appellants vis-a-vis the deceased. 10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that since the deceased was earning Rs. 1100/- per month being a Government J.B.T. Teacher, she must be contributing in the affairs of the family. Irrespective of the fact that claimants did not appear in the witness box, still, a reasonable inference can always be drawn that the claimants were dependents and were enjoying the fruits of the salary of the deceased. He submitted that the Tribunal committed an illegality by holding that the dependency of Miss Nieru was Rs. 200/- per month. 11. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that in the absence of any evidence, we cannot stretch any further compensation for the benefit of the appellants. Shri Yash Pal submitted that Shri Om Parkash was already in service. He was not dependent on the income of his wife, and, therefore, no compensation can be awarded to Shri Om Parkash. 12. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. It is true that Shri Om Parkash was in service but equally it is true that the deceased Sheela Devi was also in service and she was getting a salary of Rs. 1100/- per month. It can reasonably be presumed that the deceased was serving not for the sake of fun but definitely she was serving to supplement the income of the family so that her family affairs may run smoothly. She was a Government Teacher. She was supposed to go her office everyday. After deducting her personal expenses, the rest of her saving must be contributing to the family. In this manner, this Court is inclined to hold that the dependency of both the appellants was Rs. She was a Government Teacher. She was supposed to go her office everyday. After deducting her personal expenses, the rest of her saving must be contributing to the family. In this manner, this Court is inclined to hold that the dependency of both the appellants was Rs. 500/- per month which can be equally distributed amongst the two appellants. 13. Thus, the annual dependency of both the appellants is taken as Rs. 6,000/- and by applying a multiplier of 10, I award a sum of Rs. 60,000/- to the appellants by way of just compensation along with interest at the rate of 12% per month from the date of the filing of the petition till payment. The amount of compensation shall be paid in equal shares to the appellants. If Neeru is minor, then the amount falling to her share will be deposited in a Scheduled Bank till she attains the age of majority. If she is major, then there is no difficulty in making the payment of compensation to her also. 14. With the above observations, this appeal is partly allowed and directions are given to the respondents to pay the compensation within two months from the receipt of the copy of the other. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.