R. B. DIXIT, J. ( 1 ) LEARNED Additional claims Tribunal, Shivpuri at Karera, by impugned award dated 23. 4. 2002 passed in Claim Case No. 16 of 2001 has granted compensation of Rs. 15,000 for the death of deceased Tulsia, sister of appellant. ( 2 ) IT is not disputed that deceased Tulsia died in motor accident on 6. 6. 2001 and she was having 8 bighas of agricultural land in her possession and was living with the appellant at the time of accident. ( 3 ) THE learned trial court by impugned award has held that deceased was aged about 75 years and was living with the 1047 appellant, however, since appellant was not dependent on her, he is not entitled for any compensation except funeral expenses of Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 5,000 for love and affection. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for appellant has contended that deceased was having income of Rs. 50,000 from her agricultural land and applicant being brother was dependent upon her, therefore, compensation could be awarded assessing this income of deceased. However, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, on the other hand, has submitted that deceased being 75 years of age was depending upon appellant who is brother aged about 50 years and in the circumstances, it cannot be said that applicant was dependent on the deceased. Reliance is placed on a decision of Apex Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Pande v. Collector, raigarh, AIR 1969 SC 255 , wherein, it has been observed that in assessing value of evidence, the Judges are bound to call in aid their experience of life and test the evidence on the basis of probabilities. Evidence of only one party even when no evidence of rebuttal is led by the opposite party need not necessarily be accepted. ( 5 ) THERE is no evidence on record that deceased herself was working as labourer in the agricultural field and, therefore, it had rightly been held by learned trial court that the appellant was not dependent on deceased. He still holds the land and is getting benefit out of it which was previously held by the deceased. However, compensation in no way can be less than rs. 50,000 as has been held by this court in the case of Anwar Shah v. Ashok, 2000 (l) MPWN 112. He still holds the land and is getting benefit out of it which was previously held by the deceased. However, compensation in no way can be less than rs. 50,000 as has been held by this court in the case of Anwar Shah v. Ashok, 2000 (l) MPWN 112. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for appellant relies upon a DB decision of this court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd, Ashique, 1998 ACJ 589 (MP), where deceased was aged about 42 years and was agriculturist while the claimants were widow and others, it was held that assets left by deceased and three legal heirs have been getting benefit therefrom during lifetime of the deceased, no deduction for value of such assets can be allowed. However, it is to be noticed that in the present case, dependant is not widow or others but younger brother of deceased. ( 7 ) HON'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai, 1987 ACJ 561 (SC), has also made it clear that it is to be remembered that in the Indian family, brothers, sisters and brothers' children and sometimes foster children live together and they are dependent upon the breadwinner of the family and if the breadwinner is killed on account of a motor vehicle accident, there is no justification to deny them compensation. ( 8 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is not proved that the deceased was the breadwinner of appellant. In the circumstances, applicant/appellant is not entitled to compensation more than rs. 50,000, however, the amount already awarded by Tribunal is also to be added to it. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons stated hereinabove, this appeal is partly allowed and it is directed that the appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 65,000 together with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of application. Appeal partly allowed. .