JUDGMENT A.N. Venugopala Gowda , J.—In a road traffic accident, on 24th April, 2006, one Keshava brother of the cross-objectors sustained fatal injuries and died. The cross-objectors filed a claim petition against the appellants in the MACT to pay compensation. MACT, having noticed that the deceased was aged about 33 years, took his income at Rs. 3,000/- p.m. 50% was deducted towards personal and living expenses. Loss of dependency was determined at Rs. 1,500/- x 12 x 16 = Rs. 2,88,000/-. By addition of Rs. 10,000/- under the conventional heads, award for Rs. 2,98,000/- was passed. Respondent in the claim petition before the MACT, being aggrieved, has filed MFA No. 806/2011. The claimants have filed cross-objection 171/2011, seeking enhancement of compensation. Sri K.S. Bharath Kumar, learned Advocate for the appellant KSRTC, contended that the claimants cross-objectors being majors and self-reliant, the Tribunal has committed error in awarding compensation under the head 'loss of dependency'. Learned Counsel submitted that the Tribunal has failed to notice that all the claimants are majors and had avocation of their own and hence, no award can be passed under the head 'loss of dependency'. Learned Counsel submitted that, at best, the Tribunal could have passed the award 'loss to estate' in terms of the decision in the case of A. Manavalagan Vs. A. Krishnamurthy and Others, ILR (2004) KAR 3268 . Learned Counsel seeks modification of the impugned award. 2. Sri O. Shivarama Bhat learned Advocate appearing for the cross-objectors on the other hand, contended that the Tribunal has committed error in taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- p.m. and passing the award for Rs. 2,98,000/- with interest. Learned Counsel submits that there is under-assessment of loss and hence, seeks modification of the impugned award and to award just and reasonable compensation by way of enhancement. 3. Perused the record, point for consideration is whether the Tribunal has passed just and reasonable award? 4. Occurrence of the accident, negligence of the driver of the offending bus and the liability to pay compensation, as has been found by the MACT, is not under challenge by the appellant. Deceased Keshava was aged about 33 years. He was working in a finance Company. Though it was claimed that he was earning Rs. 10,000/- p.m. no credible proof of whatsoever nature was produced. Deceased Keshava was aged about 33 years. He was working in a finance Company. Though it was claimed that he was earning Rs. 10,000/- p.m. no credible proof of whatsoever nature was produced. In the circumstances, Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- p.m. or Rs. 36,000/- p.a. Indisputably, all the claimants are majors and are self-reliant. None of them was dependent upon the deceased since deceased was youngest in the family. Hence, the Tribunal is not justified in awarding compensation under the head 'loss of dependency'. Tribunal could have awarded 1/4th of the amount which the deceased would have earned, under the head 'loss to estate'. Thus, the Tribunal has committed error in the matter of assessment of loss and in passing the award. The just and reasonable compensation which the Tribunal ought to have awarded under the head 'loss to estate' is Rs. 1,44,000/- (Rs. 3,000 ÷ 4 x 12 x 16). To the said sum, there has to addition of Rs. 30,000/- under the conventional heads. The award passed by MACT is excessive. 5. In the result, MFA No. 806/2011 is allowed in part. Compensation payable by the appellant - KSRTC is determined at Rs. 1,74,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit. 6. Consequently, cross-objection being devoid of merit, MFA CROB. No. 171/2011 shall stand dismissed with no order as to costs. 7. Amount deposited by the appellant - KSRTC be transferred to MACT.