( 1 ) ON 26-10-1998 in the afternoon one Mallesh Yadav was riding his bicycle from Secunderabad to Begumpet. One lorry bearing No. MMS-4001 came from behind at excessive speed and hit Mallesh Yadav (hereinafter referred to as deceased ). He died at the spot. As a result, the parents, and siblings of the deceased filed the petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, hyderabad, for seeking compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the owner of the lorry, and United India Insurance Company, which is the appellant as it had insured the vehicle.

( 2 ) THE claim was not challenged by the owner of the lorry. The Insurancecompany did not dispute the liability, but urged that the claim was exorbitant and excessive and the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were not entitled to compensation.

( 3 ) THE learned Tribunal found that the death of the deceased was due torash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and therefore, the lorry owner as well as the Insurance Company with whom he insured the said lorry, were responsible for giving compensation. The Tribunal found that the deceased was earning about Rs. 1,200/- per month, but was contributing about rs. 300/- per month tq the family. This finding is not disputed any further. The Tribunal found that the respondent No. 1 (original petitioner No. l) was hale and hearty and was earning and was not at all dependent on the deceased. No compensation was granted in his favour. As far as other respondents are concerned, the Tribunal adopted somewhat curious method of calculating the amount of compensation by applying different multipliers in respect of each of the remaining three claimants. It may be pointed out that respondents 3 and 4 were really minors at that point of time. While respondent No. 3 is the sister of the deceased and was aged 17 years at that time, respondent no. 4 is the brother and was aged 11 years. The Tribunal apportioned the contribution of Rs. 300/- per month to the family amongst the three aforesaid claimants at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month each and then applied different multipliers suitable to their ages and worked out the entitlement of each of the claimants accordingly. The appellant-Company is challenging the method of calculation of the amount of compensation in respect of all.

( 4 ) THERE is no doubt that respondents 3 and 4 cannot be said to be dependentson the deceased for the whole of their remaining life. Respondent No. 3 was sister aged 17years. She cannot be said to be totally dependent on the deceased. It is the liability of the father i. e. , respondent No. 1 to bring her up and to find out suitable husband and marry her. The Tribunal, however, considered her claim as independent and applied multiplier of 19. 60 on the basis that she would be dependent on the deceased for the whole of her remaining life. This approach was clearly erroneous. Similarly, in respect of fourth respondent, considering the age of 11 years, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 22 on the basis that respondent No. 4 would have been dependent on the deceased for the whole of his remaining life. This also is totally erroneous. The consideration in respect of brother and sister is totally different than one for the children of the deceased. Brothers and sisters cannot be said to be dependents on the victim. There is no liability in la w to maintain these persons. It is another thing to say that there might have been some augmentation of income of the father by the earnings of deceased. But, there was not liability in law upon the victim/deceased to maintain either of his siblings when his father was earning and was bound to maintain the children. In the circumstances, the only true dependent was the mother of the victim. The tribunal has rightly observed that though Rs. 1,200/- per month was the income of the deceased, his contribution to the family was Rs. 300/- per month because his father was also earning and contributing to the family. Having regard to the