JUDGMENT ( 1. ) THE legal representatives of deceased venkatesh Rao, dissatisfied with the award of compensation in M.V.C. No. 10/2003 by judgment and award dated 4. 6. 2005 of the Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Metropolitan Area, SCCH-7 (for short 'mact'), have preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation. ( 2. ) THERE is no dispute that in an accident that occurred on 5. 10. 2002 involving a motor vehicle, Venkatesh Rao, aged 42 succumbed to grievous injuries leaving behind the 1st and 2nd appellants as his legal heirs who made a claim for Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation invoking Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'act' ). The claim was resisted by the 1st respondent - Insurance Company, the insurer to the offending motor vehicle, by filing Statement of objections. In the premise of the pleadings of the parties, the MACT framed issues, recorded the evidence of the 1st appellant as PW-1 and another eye-witness by name N.V. Raghavan as PW-2 and marked 7 documents as Exhibits P-1 to P-7 while for the respondents, neither oral nor documentary evidence was tendered. The MACT, having regard to the material on record, the evidence both oral and documentary and applying the principles laid down by a Division bench of this Court, in A. Manavalagan Vs. A. Krishnamurthy and Others, ilr 2004 Kar 3268, awarded Rs. 63,000/- for loss to estate, to which was added Rs. 7,000/- for obsequies and funeral ceremonies, totalling to rs. 70,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition, by the impugned judgment and award. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the MACT was not justified in not awarding compensation for loss of dependency since the 2nd claimant, an unmarried sister, was dependent on the income of the deceased. It is next contended that there was no justification for the mact to reckon 15% as the savings of the deceased from out of the income of Rs. 2,500/- per month, to award Rs. 63,000/- for loss of estate. In addition, it is contended that the MACT was not justified in awarding inadequate compensation under conventional heads. Lastly it is contended that the deceased succumbed to injuries after five days of the accident while as an in-patient in Victoria Hospital, entitled to compensation for medical expenses. ( 3. 2,500/- per month, to award Rs. 63,000/- for loss of estate. In addition, it is contended that the MACT was not justified in awarding inadequate compensation under conventional heads. Lastly it is contended that the deceased succumbed to injuries after five days of the accident while as an in-patient in Victoria Hospital, entitled to compensation for medical expenses. ( 3. ) PER contra, learned Counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company seeks to sustain the impugned judgment and award as being well-merited, fully justified and not calling for interference. ( 4. ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties, examined the impugned judgment and award, the following two questions arise for decision - making: (i) Whether the 2nd appellant-claimant is entitled to compensation for loss of dependency? (ii) Whether the compensation of Rs. 70,000/- with interest at 6% per annum, in the facts and circumstances and evidence on record, is just, reasonable and within the contemplation of the Act? The answer to the first question need not detain the Court for long. Admittedly, the second claimant did not enter the witness box nor tender evidence over her alleged dependency on the income of the deceased venkatesh Rao. Admittedly, the first claimant, a married lady with a husband to support, was examined as PW-1 and spoke to the alleged dependency of the 2nd claimant over the income of the deceased. The best evidence over dependency is that of the 2nd claimant who did not enter the witness box, nor an explanation as to why she was not examined. Even in this appeal, there is no such explanation forthcoming. In the circumstances the evidence of PW1 over the alleged dependency of the 2nd claimant, on the income of the deceased is not acceptable. Moreover appellant failed to place relevant material, constituting substantial legal evidence of the said fact. In that view of the matter, the first question is answered in the negative. ( 5. ) INDISPUTABLY, appellants legal heirs of the deceased Venkatesh Rao aged 42 on the date of accident and death, a bachelor, though placed no satisfactory proof of income of the deceased, nevertheless the MACT reckoned Rs. 2,500/- as the monthly income and applying the principle laid down in A. Manavalagan's case, took 15% of the income per month, as savings, and calculated the annual savings, to which was applied multiplier 14 applicable to age 38-42 to award Rs. 2,500/- as the monthly income and applying the principle laid down in A. Manavalagan's case, took 15% of the income per month, as savings, and calculated the annual savings, to which was applied multiplier 14 applicable to age 38-42 to award Rs. 63,000/- for loss to Estate. The choice of multiplier by the MACT, in my opinion is with reference to the age of the deceased and not with reference to the age of the first claimant. Be that as it may, this finding is not called in question by the Insurance company by filing an appeal. The award of Rs. 63,000/- towards loss to estate is just, reasonable and proper. ( 6. ) THERE is considerable force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that under the conventional heads, the appellants are entitled to be compensation adequately. The award of Rs. 10,000/- to each of the appellants for loss of love and affection is just, reasonable and is accordingly, awarded. The award of Rs. 7,000/- for funeral and obsequies ceremonies in the circumstances is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/ -. The contention that the appellants are entitled to compensation for medical expenses when the deceased was in the Hospital for a period of five days and every effort was made to revive the deceased is without merit. In the absence of relevant evidence to substantiate the expenses incurred, coupled with the fact that the deceased was in a Government hospital during the last few days of his life, it is not appropriate for this court to award compensation under the said head. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award is modified entitling the appellants to additional compensation of Rs. 23,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition and in all other respects, remains unaltered.