JUDGMENT : With the consent of learned counsel on both sides, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. MFA No.200300/2017 is directed against the judgment and award passed by the learned Prl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT at Kalaburagi, in MVC No.765/2013 challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the liability being fastened on the appellant-Insurance Company. 3. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, the parties hereinafter are referred in accordance with their respective rankings before the Tribunal. 4. The claimants are the mother and father and grand mother of the deceased - Abhishek S/o Harishchandra Bharath, who met with an accident on 27.08.2013 at about 15.00 hours near Kudaremukha Hodda. The deceased Abhishek was travelling in a Hundayi Eon Car bearing Reg.No.AP-29-AX-2199 along with his relatives from Hyderabad to Bijapur via Humnabad National Highway. 5. One Siddharth was driving the said car and the deceased Abhishek was sitting on the backside of the said car. The car was being driven at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner without following the traffic rules, endangering to human life by overtaking the vehicles in spite of it, driver was being instructed to drive slowly. But at that time, the driver suddenly turned the car at the right side of the road and applied the brake due to which the car tilted and accident occurred. Due to which, all the persons including Abhishek sustained severe injuries and succumbed on the spot. The claim petition came to be preferred under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.31,50,000/-by Smt. Renuka, mother of deceased Abhishek, Sri.Harishchandra, father of Abhishek and Smt.Parvathamma, grand mother. 6. The second respondent is said to be the insurer of the offending vehicle. The learned Member after considering the material regarding the accident, injury, disability and entitlement of compensation, awarded compensation of Rs.17,15,760/-to the claimants together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the deposit. 7. The deceased Abhishek was working in a Private Company by name Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., as a Product Promoter and getting salary of Rs.20,000/-per month. The learned Member has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.10,920/-per month and added 50% of the monthly income of the deceased towards future prospects and the total income of the deceased comes to Rs.16,380/-per month (Rs.10,920/- + Rs.5,460/-). The learned Member has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.10,920/-per month and added 50% of the monthly income of the deceased towards future prospects and the total income of the deceased comes to Rs.16,380/-per month (Rs.10,920/- + Rs.5,460/-). The Tribunal has considered the claimant Nos.1 and 2 as dependents of deceased and 50% of the income has been deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and taken the net income at Rs.8,190/-per month. 8. In this context the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the income of the deceased taken by the Tribunal is on the higher side, as the deceased was not earning such amount. 9. However, he has left his parents and it cannot be ruled out that he cannot look after his parents. Claimant No.3 is the grand mother of the deceased and she was not dependent on the deceased. Therefore, claimant No.3 is not entitled for any compensation. 10. In the circumstances of the case, the total amount granted to the claimants towards loss of dependency is Rs.26,70,760/-(8,190x12x17) appears to be just and proper. In so far as the compensation granted on the other heads deserves to be maintained. 11. We have also noted that claimant No.3 is not dependent on the deceased and we do not find any infirmity or irregularity in the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is neither higher nor less. Hence, appeal does not deserve to be allowed. Hence, it is rejected. 12. The appellant is hereby directed to deposit the compensation amount as stated in the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 13. The appellant – Insurance Company shall deposit the remaining amount apart from the deposit within four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.