JUDGMENT : B. Veerappa, J. The unfortunate wife and daughter/appellants filed the present appeal against the judgment and order dated 20.06.015 in ECA.No.313/2014 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Court of Small Causes, MACT, Bangalore. Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.4,75,250/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of accident till the date of deposit. 2. Facts of the case are that: i. The present appellants were petitioners before the trial Court, filed ECA No.313/2014 under Section 22 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of Sri.Anjinappa, S/o late Chikkanarasimhaiah, in an accident occurred during the course of employment. Deceased-Anjinappa was working as a loader and unlaoder in a mini lorry bearing registration No.KA-14-7971 which belongs to respondent No.2. Further, on 13.01.2013 at about 2.15 pm, Anjinappa was proceeding in a lorry bearing registration No.KA-14-7971, as a loader and unloader, along with others from Nelamangala towards Sondekappa and when the said lorry reached near Garehalli Temple, at that time, the driver of the said lorry drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly applied the break, as a result, the said lorry turned turtle on the side of the road. As a result of the said accident, the Anjinappa and others have sustained grievous injuries and he was shifted to Premier Sanjeevini Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein he succumbed to the grievous injuries. ii. It is further case of the appellants that Anjinappa was hale and healthy prior to the accident and he was working as a loader and unloader under the respondent No.2 and earning Rs.8,000/- p.m. as salary and Rs.50/- per day as batta. Further, the appellant No. 1 is wife and appellant No.2 is daughter of the deceased- Anjinappa and due to the unexpected death of Anjinappa, they have suffered lot and also they have lost their bread earner of the family. 3. Respondent No.1 is the insurer of the offending vehicle and respondent No.2 is the owner of the said vehicle and the policy was in force as on the date of accident. Hence, respondent Nos.1 and 2 both are liable to pay the compensation to the appellants. 4. In response to the notice, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have appeared before the Court and filed their objections to the petition. Hence, respondent Nos.1 and 2 both are liable to pay the compensation to the appellants. 4. In response to the notice, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have appeared before the Court and filed their objections to the petition. Further, respondent No.1 has denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased and also the relationship of the petitioners/appellants with the deceased and also denied that on the date of alleged accident, the deceased was not under the employment of respondent No.2. Further, respondent No.1 denied the rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle and cause of death of Anjinappa. Hence, prays for dismissal of the appeal. 5. Respondent No.2 has admitted that, he is the owner of offending vehicle and also admitted that, on the alleged date of accident, deceased-Anjinappa was working as a loader and unloader in a lorry bearing registration No.KA-14-7971. Further, respondent No.2 has denied other averments and partly admitted the contents of the appeal. 6. Respondent No.2 admitted that deceased-Aninappa was died during the course of employment and he will come under the definition of Workmen, under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Said lorry was insured with respondent No.1 and driver of the said vehicle was holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle, as on the date of accident. Further, respondent No.2 denied the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased and further submitted that respondent No.1 is liable to pay the compensation to the appellants. 7. In order to prove the case of the petitioners-appellants, petitioner No.1-appellant No.1 examined as PW1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P12. Further, respondent No.2 was examined as RW1 and got marked the documents as Ex.R1 and R2. On the other hand, respondent No.1-Insurance Company neither adduced any evidence nor produced any documents to support of its contention. 8. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: XXX XXX 9. The Tribunal considering both oral and documentary evidence held issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative by recording that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of respondent No.2 and appellants are legal representatives of deceased-Anjinappa. 10. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: XXX XXX 9. The Tribunal considering both oral and documentary evidence held issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative by recording that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of respondent No.2 and appellants are legal representatives of deceased-Anjinappa. 10. The Tribunal has held issue No.3 in partly affirmative and recorded that appellants are entitled for compensation of Rs.4,75,250/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of accident till the date of deposit. Hence, appellants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation. Respondents have not filed any appeal against the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 12. Sri.Shivakumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants mainly contended that the deceased was earning Rs.8,000/- per month including batta. In support of his contention, he relied upon the evidence of respondent No.2- RW1, who stated on oath that he was paying Rs.7,500/- p.m. and Rs.50/- per day as batta. Tribunal erred in taking the monthly wages of deceased as Rs.6,000/- without any basis and contrary to the evidence of RW.1-respondent No.2. Therefore, he sought to allow the appeal. 13. Per contra, Sri.Mohan Kumar.T., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1-Insurance Company supported the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and contended that the appellants have not produced any salary certificate issued by the respondent No.2 to prove their contention and therefore, Tribunal is justified in taking monthly wages of the deceased-Anjinappa as Rs.6,000/- per month. Hence, he sought to dismiss the appeal. 14. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the deceased-Anjinappa died during the course of his employment on account of rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing registration No.KA-14-7971 as a loader and unloader. In order to prove the said accident occurred during the course of employment, the appellants have produced documents at Ex.P1 to P8. On perusal of Ex.P1 to P8, it appears that, accident was occurred during the course of employment of the deceased. Ex.P9 and P10 are notarized copies of voter ID and Ration card of the appellants, to prove that present appellants are the legal representatives of deceased10 Anjinappa. Ex.P11 and P12 are medical bills and prescriptions of deceased. 15. On perusal of Ex.P1 to P8, it appears that, accident was occurred during the course of employment of the deceased. Ex.P9 and P10 are notarized copies of voter ID and Ration card of the appellants, to prove that present appellants are the legal representatives of deceased10 Anjinappa. Ex.P11 and P12 are medical bills and prescriptions of deceased. 15. The respondent No.1-Insurance Company has not produced any contra material to support its contention. Respondent No.2-owner, under whom the deceased- Anjinappa was working cross-examined as RW1 who stated on oath that he was paying monthly wages of Rs.7,500/- p.m. and Rs.50/- per day as batta to the deceased. No document produced by the Insurance company/respondent No.1 to disbelieve the evidence of RW1. When the relationship between the appellants and deceased is not disputed, the deceased working under respondent No.2 is also not disputed and deceased died during the course of employment, the Tribunal ought to have taken monthly wages of the deceased as Rs.7,500/- instead of Rs.6,000/-. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal is contrary to the evidence of RW1-employer of the deceased and it requires modification. 16. If the monthly wages of the deceased is taken as Rs.7,500/- p.m. under the provisions of Section 4(1)(a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 50% of the wages i.e. Rs.3,750/- to be taken as income under the category of loss of dependency and taking into consideration of age of the deceased as 52, the relevant factor is 146.2, IV Schedule has to be applied, the loss of dependency would be Rs.5,48,250/- (146.2X3750). 17. In view of the provisions of Section 4(4) of Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, the petitioners are entitled for compensation under the head funeral expenses not less than Rs.5,000/- and Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/ as funeral expenses. The same is not challenged before Tribunal. 18. After reassessing the entire material on record, the claimants are entitled for total compensation as under; Sl.No. Compensation under different Heads As awarded by the Tribunal As awarded by this Court 1 Loss of dependency 4,38,600 5,48,250 2 Funeral Expenses as per Tribunal 10,000 10,000 Total 4,75,250 5,84,900 19. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is hereby allowed in part. The compensation is enhanced from Rs.4,75,250/- to Rs.5,84,900/-. The enhanced compensation is Rs.1,09,650/-. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is hereby allowed in part. The compensation is enhanced from Rs.4,75,250/- to Rs.5,84,900/-. The enhanced compensation is Rs.1,09,650/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest at 12% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization. 20. The Tribunal is directed to release the said enhanced compensation amount in favour of the claimants. Ordered accordingly.