( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the Insurance Company who has remained present to oppose these proceedings. Other respondents are served. They have not chosen to contest these proceedings.

( 3 ) AN unfortunate accident look place where the appellants eldest son, aged about 18 years was run over by the offending truck insured by the respondent-insurance Company on 17/4/1991. In the claim petition a large amount was claimed by way of compensation amounting to Rs 10 lakhs which prima facie appeared to be unreasonable. The tribunal after recording evidence awarded Rs 40,000. 00. The High court dismissed the first appeal. In our view, as the victim was aged 18 years and belonged to a labour class and even his younger brother was doing labour work and getting Rs 10. 00 per day, it is obvious that the deceased, had he survived, would have earned a substantial amount per month for the benefit of the family as the appellants are his destitute mother and her minor children. In our view, total compensation of Rs 40,000. 00 is too meagre. Even taking a reasonable view of the amount which the deceased would have earned, h