JUDGMENT : This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 28.08.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Workmen’s Compensation, Kalaburagi in W.C.No.96/09. 2. For the sake of convenience, I shall refer the parties with their ranks before the Court below. 3. It is the case of the claimants before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner that the deceased Prakash was working as a driver in the lorry belonging to respondent No.1 on a salary of Rs.7,000/- per month and bhatta of Rs.100/- per day. On 31.08.2008 at about 13.45 hours, the deceased Prakash was driving the lorry belonging to respondent No.1 between Ankola and Bellary on NH No.63 Road and it met with an accident with another vehicle bearing registration No. KA-25/B-9522 in which the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. 4. The petitioners have further stated that the petitioner No.1 is the mother-in-law of the deceased and she is the minor guardian of petitioner Nos.2 and 3, who are children of deceased and petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased. They were dependents on the income of the deceased and due to the death of the deceased, they have lost their dependency and the only earning member in the family and they have been put to great hardship. Therefore, they claimed compensation of Rs.14,00,000/- against respondent No.1, the owner of the vehicle and respondent No.2 insurer of the said vehicle before the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Kalaburagi. 5. In pursuance of the notice respondent No.2, appeared before the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation. However respondent No.1 remained absent. He was placed ex-parte. Respondent No.2 filed written statement admitting that the insurance policy was in force in respect of the offending vehicle as on the date of the accident. He has denied the other averments made in the petition including the age, occupation and income of the deceased and it is for the petitioner to prove the same. He has also denied that the deceased was under the employment of respondent No.1. Therefore, the claim petition be dismissed. 6. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation framed issues. The claimant No.1 was examined as PW-1 and she has got marked 7 documents. Respondent No.2 got examined one official witness as RW-1 and got marked one document. 7. Therefore, the claim petition be dismissed. 6. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation framed issues. The claimant No.1 was examined as PW-1 and she has got marked 7 documents. Respondent No.2 got examined one official witness as RW-1 and got marked one document. 7. The learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation after hearing both the parties passed the impugned judgment and order awarding compensation of Rs.3,79,120/- together with interest at 12% per annum from 01.10.2008 and respondent No.2 was directed to deposit the said amount within 90 days. 8. The claimants being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order have filed this appeal contending that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Court below is quite on the lower side and the same has to be enhanced. The Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner has not considered the oral and documentary evidence properly in considering the income of the deceased as Rs.7,000/- per month and therefore, the compensation may be enhanced. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted to enhance the compensation accordingly. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, supports the impugned judgment and order. 10. It is made out in the evidence that petitioner No.1 is the grandmother and minor guardian of petitioner No.2 and 3. The mother of the petitioner No.2 and 3 had predeceased her husband namely Prakash who died in the accident. Petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are father and mother of the deceased Prakash. Petitioner No.1 Maremma was examined before the Court below. She has deposed that the deceased was working as driver of lorry belonging to respondent No.1 and was earning Rs.7,000/- per month by way of salary and Rs.100/- as bhatta per day. However, the petitioners have not produced any document in support of this contention. 11. On the other hand, respondent No.1 who is the employer of the deceased remained absent before the Court below and he has also not admitted that the deceased was getting salary of Rs.7,000/- and Rs.100/- as bhatta per day. Therefore, the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, considered the entire material on record and has observed that the petitioners have not proved the actual income of the deceased and therefore, he proceeded to hold that the deceased was earning Rs.4,000/- per month which was arrived at on the basis of Government Order No.S.K.K./34/LMW/98 dated 12.06.2002. Therefore, the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, considered the entire material on record and has observed that the petitioners have not proved the actual income of the deceased and therefore, he proceeded to hold that the deceased was earning Rs.4,000/- per month which was arrived at on the basis of Government Order No.S.K.K./34/LMW/98 dated 12.06.2002. Therefore, on the basis of the provisions of the Act, the learned Commissioner of Workmen’s Compensation had arrived at the income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- on the basis of age of the deceased loss of dependency was assessed by taking the multiplier at 189.56 as provided under the Act, accordingly the loss of dependency arrived at Rs.3,79,120/- is correct and it does not call for interference by this Court. So far as the jural relationship is concerned, respondent No.2 has not disputed the same before this Court and therefore the finding recorded by the Court below that the deceased was employee under respondent No.1 and that the death of the deceased occurred in the course of his employment is accepted. 12. Under these circumstances, I hold that the claimants/appellants are not entitled for any enhancement in the compensation. It is seen from the records that the learned Commissioner for workmen’s Compensation has apportioned a sum of Rs.99,120/- to the share of petitioner No.1 who is grandmother of petitioner No.2 and 3 namely mother’s mother and therefore she being the mother-in-law of the deceased is not entitled for any share in the compensation. This has to be corrected. Similarly the Court below has awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/- to each of petitioner Nos.4 and 5 in the claim petition who are now arrayed as respondent No.3 and 4, they being the parents of the deceased are entitled for the said compensation. 13. Under these circumstances, it is just and necessary to modify the order granting share in the compensation to petitioner No.1 who is not entitled for any share in the compensation and the amount awarded to her share has to be awarded to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 who are minor children of the deceased. 14. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is disposed of as follows: The judgment and award dated 28.08.2013 is confirmed. The following order is passed for disbursement and deposit of the compensation amount. 14. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is disposed of as follows: The judgment and award dated 28.08.2013 is confirmed. The following order is passed for disbursement and deposit of the compensation amount. The petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for a compensation of Rs.1,29,560/- each and their entire share shall be deposited in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalised Bank of the choice of the petitioner No.1 till they attain the age of majority. Petitioner No.1, grandmother, minor guardian is entitled to withdraw the periodical interest on the FD of petitioner No.2 and 3 to meet the expenses of their maintenance and education. The claimant Nos.4 and 5, respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein are entitled for a compensation of Rs.60,000/- each and on deposit of the compensation, entire amount in respect of respondent Nos.3 and 4 shall be released to them.