JUDGMENT : B.M. Shyam Prasad, J. This appeal being listed for admission is taken up for final hearing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The Insurance Company is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award by the dated 21.02.2015 in MVC.No.185/2012 by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT at Shorapur sitting at Shahapur Tribunal's (for short, 'the Tribunal'). The Insurance Company is aggrieved insofar the Tribunal's finding as regards the negligence of the driver of the Mahindra Jeep bearing Reg.No.AP-05-C-6471 and the grant of compensation granted to the claimant, who is the younger brother of deceased-Yallappa. The Tribunal vide the impugned judgment and award dated 21.02.2015 has allowed the claim petition filed by the younger brother of the deceased-Yallappa awarding a sum of Rs.08.09,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. 2. The deceased - Yallappa and his friend Rayappa were proceeding on the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.24-J-3615 from Shahapur to Rabbanalli village, on 21.11.2011, when they met with an involving the Mahindra Jeep bearing Reg.No.AP-05-C-6471 (for short, 'the offending vehicle') coming from the opposite side. Both Yallappa and Rayappa died on the spot. 3. The younger brother of the deceased- Yallappa has filed a claim petition for compensation arraying the owner of the offending vehicle and its insurer as respondents alleging that the accident was because of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. He has asserted that deceased- Yallappa was an earning member of his family comprising of himself and the deceased - Yallappa, and he was dependent on the income of the deceased- Yallappa. He has also asserted that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month as agriculturist and agriculture labour. The owner and Insurance Company have filed their objections contending that the accident was because of the rash and negligent riding of the rider of motorcycle, Sri. Rayappa. The Claimant being the younger brother of the deceased-Yallappa, cannot be his dependent. 4. This claim petition by the younger brother of the deceased Yallappa was clubbed with the claim petition in MVC No. 188/2012 filed by the parents of the deceased-Rayappa. The claimant examined himself as PW.1 in support of claim petition. Rayappa. The Claimant being the younger brother of the deceased-Yallappa, cannot be his dependent. 4. This claim petition by the younger brother of the deceased Yallappa was clubbed with the claim petition in MVC No. 188/2012 filed by the parents of the deceased-Rayappa. The claimant examined himself as PW.1 in support of claim petition. Insofar as accident, the claimant (and the claimants in other claim petition in MVC No. 188/2012) relied upon the FIR registered within the jurisdictional police on 21.11.2011, Charge Sheet and the Crime Details Form that included a sketch of the place of accident. The owner of the offending vehicle examined himself as RW.1. 5. Though the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company contend that the Tribunal has erred in fixing the liability on the driver of the offending vehicle, insofar as the present appeal the question, which of the two drivers were negligent would not be significant. The claim petition is by the younger brother of the deceased who was only a pillion rider, and therefore, a third party. The accident would be because of composite negligence, and either of the joint tortfeasors could be sued by the claimants. As such, the appeal on this point cannot be entertained. 6. Insofar as the claim by the younger brother of the deceased Yallappa, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company relies upon the decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Shivamma and others, (2008) ILR(Kar) 1561. This decision is based on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt.Manjuri Bera vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, (2007) AIRSCW 1962 and the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.A Manavalagan vs. A Krishnamurthy, (2004) ILR(Kar) 3268. It is asserted that if the claimant's dependency on the claimant is not established, the claimant would not be entitled for award of compensation towards loss of dependency. But, Tribunal has not considered this question and has awarded compensation towards loss of dependency. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company is vociferous in his argument that there is no evidence on record to justify the claimant' s dependency on his elder brother. The learned counsel emphasized that the deceased-Yallappa was aged about 21 years on the date of accident and the claimant, the younger brother of the deceased, was 20 years. The learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company is vociferous in his argument that there is no evidence on record to justify the claimant' s dependency on his elder brother. The learned counsel emphasized that the deceased-Yallappa was aged about 21 years on the date of accident and the claimant, the younger brother of the deceased, was 20 years. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimant-respondent No.1, relied upon the decision of this Court in MFA.No.2293/2010 disposed off on 28.06.2012. The learned counsel for the parties have taken this Court through the records. 8. It is now settled that if loss of dependency is established as a fact, the compensation should be awarded towards loss of such dependency, and if dependency is not established, the claimant/s would only be entitled to award towards loss of estate. Therefore, from the evidence available on record, it must be seen that whether the claimant - the younger brother of the deceased has established dependency on his elder brother. 9. The claimant has averred in the claim petition that the deceased-Yallappa was an earning member and the claimant was dependent on the income of the deceased-Yallappa. He has further averred that the deceased Yallappa and he were earning Rs.6,000/- per month. The claimant has repeated this in his chief examination. In the cross-examination it is elicited that the claimants and the deceased are orphans and they lost their parents about 10 years prior to the accident. Their uncle sheltered them after the demise of the parents. The claimant was residing with his brother deceased. They have a residential property and marginal agricultural income. He and his elder brother were working together as agricultural works whenever opportunities arose. His elder brother was unmarried and both of them were dependent upon the income from agricultural and wages from agricultural works. He has specifically denied the suggestion in the cross-examination that his elder brother was aged about 30 years at the time of accident. He also stated that he and his deceased brothers were uneducated. His elder brother was 02 years elder to him. 10. Thus, the evidence on record is that the claimant and his elder brother were orphans and both of they are uneducated. They were, as of the date of the accident, in their early twenties. They worked together and shared their income. Their family comprised of only themselves. His elder brother was 02 years elder to him. 10. Thus, the evidence on record is that the claimant and his elder brother were orphans and both of they are uneducated. They were, as of the date of the accident, in their early twenties. They worked together and shared their income. Their family comprised of only themselves. There is no material on record to indicate that any other supported these brothers, and in fact, the evidence is that both of them were working together in their agricultural lands and as agricultural workers. They would, therefore, naturally be dependent on each other. This Court cannot, in every case, take a pedantic view that a claimant, because he is the younger brother of deceased, would not be dependent on the elder brother. Thus, in totality of the facts and circumstances as discussed above, this Court is of the considered view that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal cannot be set at naught on the ground that there was no dependency between the claimant and his elder brother. 11. The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.6,750/- including accretion 50% towards further prospectus. However, accretion cannot be 50% after the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranaya Sheti because the deceased was aged about 22 years as on the date of accident, and the accretion could be only 40%. The income of the deceased elder brother of the claimant, for want of categorical evidence, cannot be taken at Rs.4,500/- per month. The notional income with accretion towards further prospectus with 40% can only be taken at Rs.6,000/- for computation of loss of dependency. If the loss of dependency is worked out accordingly retaining the other parameters adopted by the Tribunal, the claimant would be entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs.6,48,000/- towards loss of dependency and a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards the conventional heads. The details are as follows: Loss of Dependency [Rs.6000/-(including accretion towards future prospects @ 40%) X 12 X 50% (toward personal expenses) x 18 (multiplier)] Rs.6,48,000/- Conventional Heads Rs.30000/- Total Rs.6,78,000/- For the foregoing, the following.. The details are as follows: Loss of Dependency [Rs.6000/-(including accretion towards future prospects @ 40%) X 12 X 50% (toward personal expenses) x 18 (multiplier)] Rs.6,48,000/- Conventional Heads Rs.30000/- Total Rs.6,78,000/- For the foregoing, the following.. ORDER a. The appeal is allowed in part, and the impugned judgment and award passed in MVC.No.185/2012 by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT at Shorapur, sitting at Shahapur is modified confining the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to a sum of Rs.6,78,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit. b. The office is directed to transmit the amounts in deposit in this appeal to the Tribunal for disbursement, and the appellant - Insurance Company shall deposit the balance amount as per this judgment with the Tribunal within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. c. No costs.