JUDGMENT :-Appellants, who are the son and daughter of Danaiah (deceased) who died due to an accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- from the respondents on the ground that the deceased who was aged 50 years was earning Rs.2,900/- p.m. as salary by the date of his death in the accident. 2. First respondent chose to remain ex parte. 3. Second respondent filed its counter h inter alia putting the appellants to proof of the averments in the petition relating to the age and income of the deceased and contending that the accident did not occur due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry insured with it. 4. In support of their claim, appellants examined the first appellant as P. W.1 and the other witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the second respondent but marked Ex.B.1 by consent. 5. The Tribunal after holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent, awarded Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the appellants on the basis that they are not the dependents of the deceased. Aggrieved thereby, the claimants preferred this appeal. 6. Since this is an appeal by the claimants seeking higher compensation than that was awarded by the Tribunal and since the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry belonging to the first respondent has become final, the only point for consideration is to what compensation are the appellants entitled to. 7. The Tribunal restricting the compensation payable under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) on the ground that the appellants are majors and so they cannot be said to be the dependants on the deceased. The view taken by the Tribunal is clearly erroneous because the compensation payable in a petition under Section 166 of the Act is to a legal representative but not to the dependents. The view taken by the Tribunal is clearly erroneous because the compensation payable in a petition under Section 166 of the Act is to a legal representative but not to the dependents. The fact that the appellants are the son and daughter of the deceased is not denied or disputed, so they would be the legal heirs to the estate of the deceased and so they are entitled to get the compensation to be awarded due to the death of their father. 8. The evidence of P.W.3 read with Ex. A4, salary certificate, shows that the take home salary of the deceased, who was aged 55 years 5 months at the time of his death and who was having four years seven months service, was Rs.2,866/- p.m. after statutory deductions. So the contribution of the deceased to the appellants can be taken as Rs.1,400/- p.m. or Rs.16,800/- p.a. and as per Bhagawandas v. Mohd. Arif, 1987 (2) ALT 137 , the multiplier would be 4.27. So the pecuniary damages payable to the appellants come to Rs.16,800 x 4.27 = Rs.71,736/-. 9. In View of the ratio in Y. Varalakshmi v. M Nageswara Rao, 1988 (1) ALT 337, appellants are also entitled to Rs. 1 5,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages. 10. So the appellants are entitled to Rs.71,736/- + Rs.15,OOO/- = Rs.86,736/-, which can be rounded to Rs.86,750/-. The point is answered accordingly. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and an award is passed for Rs.86,750/ - with interest at 12% p.a on Rs.25,OOO/ITom the date of petition till the date of deposit as awarded by the Tribunal and with interest at 9% p.a., on Rs.6l,750/-, awarded in this Court, from this date till the date of deposit into the Court with proportionate costs in the Tribunal. Rest of the claim of appellants is dismissed without costs. From out of the said amount, first appellant is entitled to Rs.35,000/and interest thereon. Second appellant is entitled to Rs. 51,750/- and interest thereon. Parties are directed to bear their own costs in this appeal.