Judgment :- P.C.: 1. The present Appeal has been filed under the Motor Vehicles Act by the State Government. The deceased was working as a labourer on a truck carrying sand. Respondent No.4 herein was driving a truck owned by the appellants. The deceased Gorakh Balaji Kalamkar was sitting on the road side at Shirur-Pabal when the truck dashed against him on 3rd January, 1984. The deceased succumbed to his injuries on the spot. 2. The applicants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pune, i.e. the respondents herein, are the widow and the minor son of the deceased and the parents of the deceased. 3. The Tribunal has held that the applicants had proved that the driver of the vehicle, i.e. the truck, was driving in a rash and negligent manner. It has also been proved that the deceased died as a result of this rash driving. The Tribunal has then quantified the compensation payable to the applicants. On the basis of the monthly income of the deceased being Rs.400/- to Rs.500/-, the Tribunal has held that the annual dependency would be Rs.3,600/-. The deceased was 25 years of age at the time of the accident. Accordingly, the Tribunal has calculated the dependency and has held that the total dependency should be treated as 15. The Tribunal has then calculated the compensation and held that the claimants would be entitled to Rs.60,000/- as compensation inclusive of the amount payable towards the no fault liability, together with interest thereon @ 12% p.a. from the date of the application till realization. 4. After going through the evidence on record, I am satisfied that the Tribunal has correctly assessed the evidence led before it. It has been established that the deceased died due to the fatal accident which occurred on 3rd January, 1984 when the truck owned by the appellants dashed into him. The negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle has been established. The Tribunal has, in my opinion, correctly calculated the compensation and has concluded that the claimants would be entitled to Rs.60,000/- together with interest thereon after deducting the amount of no fault liability. 5. In my view, no case has been made out to interfere with the judgment of the Tribunal. 6. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed.