JUDGMENT V. Srishananda, J. - Unsatisfied claimants are before this court in this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Ranebennur, dated 09.04.2014 in MVC No.137/2012. 2. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are as under : The claimant contended that on 10.11.2011 at about 18.45 hours on Haveri Ranebennur P.B. road, near Hoolihalli village when one Ramakrishna Belagavi @ Badiger was crossing the road the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-07/F-1466 drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. Whereby he sustained fatal injuries and he was shifted to Ranebennur Government hospital and for further treatment he was shifted to C.G. Hospital, Davanagere. However, Mr.Ramakrishna Belagavi @ Badiger was succumbed to the injuries on 14.11.2011. The claimants are the brothers of the deceased. 3. Further, it is contended that the claimants have incurred a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical and funeral expenses and further, it is contended that said Ramakrishna Belagavi @ Badiger was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by doing agricultural work and business and the entire family was dependent on his earnings and due to untimely death of Ramakrishna Belagavi @ Badiger the family has lost their bread earner and sought for compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-. 4. On issuance of notice before the tribunal, the respondent appeared and did not choose to file any written statement. Thereafter, second claimant got examined himself as PW1 and marked the documents as Ex.P1 to P7 in support of their case. 5. On the basis of cumulative consideration of the entire evidence on record, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioners were not dependant on the income of the deceased as they were having their own independent source of income and there was no further material on record to show that the deceased in fact was earning Rs.20,000/- per month and did not grant any compensation on the head of loss of dependency. 6. Tribunal granted the compensation on the following heads: 1 Loss of dependency NIL. 2 Loss of love and affection 20,000/- 3 Towards funeral expenses 10,000/- 4 Towards loss of estate 72,900/- TOTAL 1,02,900/- 7. 6. Tribunal granted the compensation on the following heads: 1 Loss of dependency NIL. 2 Loss of love and affection 20,000/- 3 Towards funeral expenses 10,000/- 4 Towards loss of estate 72,900/- TOTAL 1,02,900/- 7. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the judgment and award passed by the tribunal is contrary to law and evidence on record and the compensation awarded even on the other heads is too low and meager. Therefore, sought for enhancement of the compensation. 8. It is further contended that the tribunal has taken the notional income of the deceased for a sum of Rs.4,500/- and as such, the same needs to be increased and suitable compensation be awarded appropriately. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that the deceased was bachelor and therefore, applying the principles of law enunciated in the case of Sarala Verma(smt) and Others V/s. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the brothers and sisters do not become the dependants and as such, the award passed by the tribunal perfectly justified. The counsel for the respondent further contended that the compensation awarded by the tribunal on the other heads perfectly justified and as such, sought for dismissal of the appeal. 10. In view of the rival contentions urged by the parties, the sole point that would arise for consideration is : 1. Whether the claimants made out a case for enhancement of compensation? 11. The answer for the above point is affirmative for the following reasons: REASONS 12. In the case on hand, the death of Ramakrishna Belagavi @ Badiger in the accident occurred on 10.11.2011 involving KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-07/F-1466 and Ramakrishna Belagavi @ Badiger having died on 14.11.2011, due to the injury sustained by him, is not in dispute. So also the fact that the deceased was a bachelor, the present petitioners being major brothers of the deceased is not in dispute. 13. The tribunal has placed reliance on the Police documents, wherein the avocation of the petitioners is shown as radio repairer and electrical work which is evident from Ex.P6 and came to the conclusion that the petitioners were not the dependants. 14. Further, the tribunal also placed its reliance on principles enunciated in the case of Sarala Verma (supra), to hold that the deceased being bachelor, the brothers and sisters would not become the dependants of the deceased. 15. 14. Further, the tribunal also placed its reliance on principles enunciated in the case of Sarala Verma (supra), to hold that the deceased being bachelor, the brothers and sisters would not become the dependants of the deceased. 15. As such, denial of awarding of the compensation on the head of loss of dependency cannot be interfered by this court. However, in respect of loss of estate, the tribunal has taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- and awarded compensation of Rs.72,900/-. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that it is too low and incorrect. 16. This court and in Lok Adalkaths, for the accidents occurred during the year 2011 normally would assess the notional income @ Rs.6,000/- per month. 17. In this case, in the absence of any material on record to indicate the exact income of the deceased, it would be appropriate to assess the notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/-. It would come to Rs.24,300/- (1,500X12=18,000X15%=2,700x9=24,300). 18. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that on the head of loss of estate, the claimants have made out a case for enhancement of Rs.24,300/-. 19. On the other heads namely loss of love and affection and towards funeral expenses, we are of the opinion that it requires no interference. 20. In view of the foregoing discussion, we deem it fit to enhance the compensation to a sum of Rs.24,300/- on the head of loss of estate and accordingly, the point is answered in the affirmative. In view of the same, I pass the following : ORDER The appeal is allowed in part. The claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.24,300/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization of the amount. Respondent-Insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount accrued interest within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. The deposit and apportionment of the enhanced compensation shall hold good as per the order of the tribunal. Draw the modified award accordingly.