JUDGMENT : K.J. Thaker, J. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the papers on record. 2. The appellant insurance company has challenged the award dated 29.01.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Dhrangadhra in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 810 of 1998 (New) whereby the Tribunal has directed the opponents to pay compensation of Rs.1,56,680/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till realisation. 3. The claimant who is the brother of deceased - Govabhai Thakore filed claim petition to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- seeking compensation in respect of death of Govabhai in a vehicular accident which occurred on 10.05.1997 when he was travelling in a mini luxury bus bearing registration no. GRM 9013 which driven by original opponent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award. 4. Ms. Karuna Rahevar, learned advocate appearing for the appellant - Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the entire facts of the case and evidence on record and thereby erred in awarding higher amount under various heads. She submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly not appreciated the fact that the claimant is the brother of the deceased and was not dependent on him and that it is even admitted by the claimant in the cross examination that the deceased was a bachelor and was living separately and therefore the Tribunal has wrongly awarded compensation under the head of future loss of income to the claimant. 5. As a result of hearing and perusal of records, this court is of the view that considering the evidence on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident happened as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the original opponent no. 1. Nothing is pointed out before this Court to take a contrary view. Even otherwise the original opponents nos. 1 & 2 have failed to file appearance before the trial court and therefore the trial court proceeded exparte against them. 5.1 Learned advocate for the appellant has contended that the claimant is not entitled for compensation being the brother of the deceased. Even otherwise the original opponents nos. 1 & 2 have failed to file appearance before the trial court and therefore the trial court proceeded exparte against them. 5.1 Learned advocate for the appellant has contended that the claimant is not entitled for compensation being the brother of the deceased. However, the Tribunal has rightly relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Ashwin Vrajlal Rajgor, reported in 2005 (2) GLH 85 ; AIR 2005 (NOC) 483 (Guj.) and concluded that as the petitioner comes in the category of legal heir as per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and no body has come forward to claim any compensation for the death of the deceased, the claimant shall be entitled to compensation for the death of deceased. The Tribunal has finally quantified the amount of compensation at Rs.1,56,680/-. This court is in complete agreement with the reasoning's adopted and findings arrived at by the Tribunal and therefore do not see any reason for causing interference. 6. In the premises aforesaid, appeal is dismissed. The respondents are however directed to deposit the amount of compensation along with interest and costs within a period of eight weeks from today. No costs. Appeal dismissed.