JUDGMENT : K. Nagarathna, J. 1. The Insurance Company has preferred this appeal, assailing the judgment and award dated 26/08/2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore [hereinafter, referred to as the "Tribunal"], in MVC.No.4636/2014. By the said judgment and award the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.15,10,899/- together with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization. Being aggrieved, the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to in terms of their status before the Tribunal. 3. Respondents - claimants filed the claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- on account of death of M.S.Ananda Prasad, in a road traffic accident. 4. According to the claimants, M.S.Ananda Prasad was the brother of claimants No.1 to 3 and brother-in-law of claimant No.4. That they were all financially depending upon the deceased M.S.Ananda Prasad. On 11/11/2010 at about 4.00 p.m. M.S.Ananda Prasad, was proceeding towards Medithambihalli bus stop on NH-4, Kolar Taluk and District on the footpath. At that time, driver of the KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-07-F-1360 came from Kolar side in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, without observing traffic rules and regulations and came towards the wrong side on the footpath and dashed against M.S.Ananda Prasad, as a result, he was knocked down and sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. According to the claimants, M.S.Ananda Prasad was a healthy person, working as a Lecturer in Government PC College at Vemagal, Kolar Taluk, drawing monthly salary of Rs.20,000/-. He was contributing his entire income towards maintenance of his family. That on account of the accident, family has suffered deep mental shock and agony. That a case was registered in the Kolar Rural Police Station against the driver of the KSRTC bus in Crime No.373/2010 for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304(a) of IPC, claiming compensation on various heads. 5. In response to the notices issued by the Tribunal, the Corporation i.e., Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, the owner of the vehicle and appellant herein, appeared and filed their separate written statements. 5. In response to the notices issued by the Tribunal, the Corporation i.e., Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, the owner of the vehicle and appellant herein, appeared and filed their separate written statements. The Corporation in its written statement denied the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the driver of the bus was proceeding towards Tirupathi from Bangalore on its scheduled trip carefully and cautiously by observing all traffic rules and regulations and the deceased without observing the traffic rules was trying to cross the road and after seeing the bus he suddenly turned back but got injured and as a result, the bus hit him. That Corporation is not liable to pay any compensation. That the claimants had earlier filed two more claim petitions and therefore, the present claim petition was not maintainable. 6. Respondent No.2 - Insurer of the vehicle filed its written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition by contending that the liability was subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. That the deceased himself was negligent in crossing the road without noticing the bus which was coming on the road and that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation and prayed for rejection of the claim petition. 7. On the basis of the pleadings, Tribunal framed the following issues for its consideration:- "1. Whether the petitioners proves that deceased M.S.Anandaprasad died in a road traffic accident on 11-11-2010 at about 4.00 p.m., at Medithambihalli gate, on NH-4 road, Kolar taluk and district, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-07-F-1360? 2. Whether petitioners are entitled for any compensation? If so to what extent and from whom? 3.What Order or Award?" 8. In support of their case, claimants examined four witnesses and produced 18 documents, which were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.18. On behalf of the Insurance Company, R.W.1 - L.Karthik was examined, but no documentary evidence was produced. 9. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Tribunal answered I.A.No.I in the affirmative, I.A.No.II partly in the affirmative and awarded compensation of Rs.15,10,899/- with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till realization and fastened the liability jointly and severally on the respondents. 10. We have heard learned counsel for appellant. 11. 9. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Tribunal answered I.A.No.I in the affirmative, I.A.No.II partly in the affirmative and awarded compensation of Rs.15,10,899/- with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till realization and fastened the liability jointly and severally on the respondents. 10. We have heard learned counsel for appellant. 11. Learned counsel for appellant firstly contended that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the Corporation. That the deceased M.S.Ananda Prasad was negligent in crossing the road without noticing the arrival of the bus and that he was the cause for his death as the driver of the bus could not avoid hitting him. He further contended that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant as the respondents - claimants were not depended on the deceased and at best, a nominal compensation could have been awarded on the head of "loss of estate", but not to the extent of Rs.14,50,899/-. He submitted that the judgment and award of the Tribunal calls for interference at the hands of this Court. 12. As noted above, respondent - claimants have not appeared in the matter. Having heard learned counsel for appellant and on perusal of the material on record, the following points would still require consideration:- (1) Whether the respondent - claimants established that the death of M.S.Ananda Prasad was on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing No.KA- 07-F-1360? (2) Whether the award of compensation to the respondent - claimants is just and proper? (3) What order? 13. The claimants have contended that on 11/11/2010 at about 4.00 p.m. M.S.Ananda Prasad was proceeding towards Medithambihalli bus stop on NH-4 Kolar Taluk and district on the foot path, at that time, driver of the KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-07-F-1360 came from Kolar side with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner without observing traffic rules and dashed against M.S.Ananda Prasad. As a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The bus was proceeding from Kolar side on N.H.4. As a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The bus was proceeding from Kolar side on N.H.4. The Tribunal has considered the documentary evidence produced by the claimants namely, copy of complaint - Ex.P1; FIR - Ex.P.2; copy of spot mahazar - Ex.P.3; copy of spot sketch - Ex.P.4; copy of IMV Report - Ex.P.5; copy of inquest panchanama - Ex.P.6, copy of post mortem report - Ex.P.7, copy of charge sheet - Ex.P.8 and has come to the conclusion that the accident had occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC bus. 14. It is also noted that charge sheet was filed in Crime No.373/2010 against the driver of the said bus. Although Insurance Company took a stand before the Tribunal that the death of M.S.Ananda Prasad was on account of his own negligence but, the evidence on record does not establish the said fact. It is noted that the bus was proceeding from Bangalore to Tirupathi and was coming from Kolar side towards Medithambihalli bus stop on N.H.4 and M.S.Ananda Prasad was proceeding towards the bus stop in the said village, which is on the left side of the road. P.W.3 is the eye witness to the accident, who has also supported the case of the respondent - claimants. Considering the documentary and oral evidence on record, the Tribunal has held that the offending vehicle i.e., bus went on the wrong side and dashed against the deceased, as a result of which, he was knocked down and sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Exs.P.3 and P.4 reveal the said fact and Exs.P.6 and P.7 indicate that the injured died on the spot. No evidence is forthcoming as to how the driver of the bus was not negligent when he dashed against M.S.Ananda Prasad. In fact, it was contended by the Insurance Company that the deceased entered the middle of the road but the same has not been accepted by the Tribunal. In the circumstances, we do not think that any material is produced by the Insurance Company so as to take a different view in the matter. Hence, Point No.1 is answered against the Insurer. 15. In the circumstances, we do not think that any material is produced by the Insurance Company so as to take a different view in the matter. Hence, Point No.1 is answered against the Insurer. 15. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it has been established by the claimants that M.S.Ananda Prasad was working as Lecturer in Government Pre-University College at Vemagal, Kolar Taluk. His monthly salary was Rs.19,166/-. He was aged about 30 years and a bachelor. P.W.4 is claimant No.4 - sister-in-law of the deceased, who is the widow of the deceased's brother. She had stated in her evidence that her husband Thulasiram Prasad had also died in a road traffic accident; that they had not received any compensation on account of the death of her husband; that she and her two minor children, Vinay and Sujith were entirely depending on the earnings of her brother-in-law M.S.Ananda Prasad. That the compensation on the head of "loss of dependency" ought to be awarded. However, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation on the head of "loss of dependency". Instead, the Tribunal has reckoned the net monthly salary and has deducted 3/4th of the same towards the personal expenses of the deceased and by adding 50% towards future prospects and by applying multiplier of "17", Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.14,50,899/- towards "loss of estate". 16. Although, the evidence has been let in by P.W.2 that they were entirely depending on the earnings of the deceased M.S.Ananda Prasad and that he was looking after their family out of his monthly earnings, the Tribunal has reckoned only 25% of his monthly earnings as his personal expenses towards monthly salary. We think that deduction of 3/4th of the monthly income along with future prospects towards personal and living expenses by the deceased is just and proper. Hence, the award of compensation on the head of "loss of estate" at Rs.14,50,899/- does not call for any interference. 17. On the head of "loss of love and affection", a sum of Rs.30,000/- is awarded and towards "transportation of dead body and funeral expenses" another sum of Rs.30,000/- is awarded, which comes to Rs.15,10,899/-. 18. Hence, we find that there are four claimants and towards "loss of love and affection" only Rs.30,000/- has been awarded. 17. On the head of "loss of love and affection", a sum of Rs.30,000/- is awarded and towards "transportation of dead body and funeral expenses" another sum of Rs.30,000/- is awarded, which comes to Rs.15,10,899/-. 18. Hence, we find that there are four claimants and towards "loss of love and affection" only Rs.30,000/- has been awarded. Further, the children of P.W.2, nephews of the deceased are not made parties and it has been stated in the evidence that they were also depended on the earnings of the deceased M.S.Ananda Prasad, who was none other than their paternal uncle. Therefore, the award of compensation on the head of "loss of love and affection" is also not on the lower side. The award of compensation towards "transportation of dead body and funeral expenses" also is not excessive so as to call for any deduction. 19. As far as the award of interest at 8% p.a. is concerned, it is noted that the said rate has been awarded by the Tribunal on the basis of its discretionary powers having regard to the fact that the children of the deceased brother were not arrayed as parties but they were also dependent on the income of the deceased. 20. In this context, it is also necessary to rely on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and another, (1987) AIR SC 1690, where the question was whether only legal representatives could apply for compensation. While answering the said question, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the legal representatives need not necessarily be one of the persons contemplated under Section 1-A of the Fatal Accidents Act. That the brother of the deceased can also maintain a petition for compensation as a legal representative. While answering the said question, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the legal representatives need not necessarily be one of the persons contemplated under Section 1-A of the Fatal Accidents Act. That the brother of the deceased can also maintain a petition for compensation as a legal representative. While distinguishing as to who can maintain a petition under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act as against a bar under the Fatal Accidents Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held, "It is to be remembered that in an Indian family brothers, sisters and 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 which has been substantially modified by the provisions contained in the Motor Vehicles Act in relation to cases arising out of motor vehicles accidents." In the circumstances, we cannot fault the siblings of M.S.Ananda Prasad and his sister-in-law seeking compensation on account of his death. 21. We do not find any merit in the appeal. Appeal is hence, dismissed. The amount deposited before this Court be transmitted to the Tribunal concerned.