Judgment : 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 19.10.2005 passed by the Court of the I Addl. M.A.C.T., Karwar in M.V.C. No. 191/2003. The deceased Anklar @ Anand was knocked down by a bus, when he was on his way back from the work-place to his residence. For his death in the road traffic accident in question, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,33,000/-, the break-up of which is as follows- 2. The Insurance Company is in appeal before me. Sri V.R. Datar, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the brothers of the deceased. As they were not dependent on the deceased, they are not entitled to be awarded any amount towards the loss of dependency and in any case, their entitlement could be only towards the loss of estate. In support of his submissions, he has relied on this Court’s Division Bench Judgment, in the case of A.Manavalagan v. A. Krishnamurthy and others, reported in ILR 2004 KAR 3268. 3. Sri. D.V. Pattar, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that the first respondent is deaf and dumb and the second respondent suffers from tuberculosis. As they have not been working and as they have been depending on the deceased’s income, they are entitled to be awarded the amounts towards the loss of dependency. 4. I have browsed through the L.C.R.s. 5. The respondent No.2 (P.W.1) has stated that the 1st respondent is deaf and dumb. He has produced the medical certificate at Ex.P-3 in this regard. It is not in dispute that the parents of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are not alive. It is also not in dispute that the deceased, even though he was aged about 43 years at the time of the accident, was not married. Under these circumstances, it can be safely taken that the respondent No.1 was dependant on the income of his deceased brother. The decision in A. Manavalagan (supra) relied upon by the appellant’s side has no application for the facts of the case. 6. Under these circumstances, it can be safely taken that the respondent No.1 was dependant on the income of his deceased brother. The decision in A. Manavalagan (supra) relied upon by the appellant’s side has no application for the facts of the case. 6. Considering that (a) the first respondent is deaf and dumb and incapable of doing any work (b) his parents are not alive and (c) the deceased himself was not married perhaps to take care of his brother (the respondent No.1), it is not desirable to deny the amounts towards the loss of dependency to the respondent No.1. On the demise of Anklar @ Anand, the respondent No.2 may be looking after the respondent No.1. There is no dispute over the apportionment of the amounts between the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. I am not inclined to restrict the loss of amounts awarded towards the loss of dependency to 50% and give it only to the respondent No.1 for one simple reason: if the claim petition were to be filed by the respondent No.1 only, he would have been held to be entitled to the said amounts. Further, the respondent No.2 who is himself suffering from tuberculosis, may have to make alternative arrangements for taking care of his deaf and dumb brother (the respondent No.1). 7. The awarding of the amounts towards the loss of dependency by the Tribunal to the brothers of the deceased under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case cannot be held to be bad. I feel that the awarding of the amounts towards the loss of dependency is in consonance with the principles of justice, equity and good conscience having regard to the conditions of the Indian society. It is profitable to refer to the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of GAJANAND AND OTHERS v. VIRENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS reported in 2010 ACJ 145 . It is held therein that the elder brother of the deceased is entitled to compensation towards the loss of dependency even in the absence of proof of actual dependency. 8. It is held therein that the elder brother of the deceased is entitled to compensation towards the loss of dependency even in the absence of proof of actual dependency. 8. It is also beneficial to refer to the Apex Court’s judgment in the case of GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN., AHMEDABAD v. RAMANBHAI PRABHATBHAI AND ANOTHER reported in1987 ACJ 561, wherein it is held that relying upon the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, the compensation cannot be denied to the members of the family, if its bread-winner is killed in the accident. Further, it is held therein that a legal representative is the one who suffers on account of death of a person due to a motor accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent and child. In para 12 of its judgments, the Apex Court has this to say: ’12……….We should remember that in an Indian family brothers, sisters ,brothers’ children and sometimes foster children live together and they are dependent upon the bread-winner of the family and if the bread-winner is killed on account of a motor vehicle accident, there is no justification to deny them compensation relying upon the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855…………” 9. I uphold the impugned award and dismiss this appeal. The amounts deposited by the appellant-Insurance Company in this appeal are ordered to be transferred to the Tribunal. 10. No order as to costs.