K. SREEDHAR RAO, J. ( 1 ) ONE Bhagyalaxmi, is the deceased in M. V. C. No. 618 of 1996. In the accident Bhagyalaxmi died and her uncle sustained personal injuries. Petitioners are the parents of the deceased bhagyalaxmi. Petitioners are not examined. But the uncle of the deceased has given evidence in support of the petitioners' case. The Claims Tribunal dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioners are not examined. ( 2 ) NEITHER the provisions of Order 18 of civil Procedure Code nor the rules of evidence insist that a party to the proceeding should necessarily be examined. Non-examination of a party is not fatal to the case. The party without examining himself can prove his case by examining any witness who has personal knowledge of the facts and is competent to testify. The court upon such evidence can grant relief to the party. But, if the witness examined is not competent to depose to the facts, perhaps in such a situation, the court will draw an adverse inference and the party runs the risk of dismissal of the case for his non-examination. ( 3 ) IN the instant case, the uncle who has testified on behalf of the petitioners cannot be called an incompetent witness to testify the material facts nor can be said that the witness has no personal knowledge of the facts. Therefore, dismissal on the ground of non-examination of petitioners is bad in law. ( 4 ) THE deceased is aged about 19 years. The Division Bench of this court in Puttamma v. D. V. Krishnappa, 2000 ACJ 103 (Karnataka), has held that in case of a non-earning member, the minimum compensation payable is Rs. 1,50,000. In this case, deceased has the capacity and potential to earn. Therefore, petitioners to be awarded a minimum compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 with interest at 6 per cent from the date of the petition till payment. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Appeal allowed.