Appellants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the death of their unmarried son Brij Gopal Tiwari (deceased) said to be aged 24 years earning about Rs.5,000/- p.m. from business, alleging that when the deceased along with his friend was proceeding on a scooter, a lorry belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent being driven in a rash and negligent manner came in the opposite direction of the scooter and dashed the scooter resulting in the death of the deceased.

2. First respondent chose to remain ex parte.

3. Second respondent filed its counter inter alia putting the appellants to proof of the averments in the petition.

4. The claim petition filed by the appellants and another claim petition filed by the legal representatives of another victim were clubbed and common evidence was recorded. In support of the case of the appellants, the first appellant was examined as P.W.1 and the first claimant in another claim petition filed by the legal representative of other victim was examined as P.W.2 and another witness was examined as P.W.3 and Exs.A-1 to A-8 were marked on behalf of the claimants. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the second respondent.

5. The Tribunal held that the accident resulting in the death of two victims occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry of the first respondent and awarded Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the claimants. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded to them, the claimants preferred this appeal.

6. Since the appeal is by the claimants seeking higher compensation than that was awarded and since the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry of the first respondent has become final, the only point for consideration is to what compensation are the appellants entitled to.

7. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that inasmuch as the deceased was unmarried and since the evidence of P.W.1, the father of the deceased, that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/p.m. stands unrebutted the Tribunal was in error in not awarding adequate compensation. Relying on Nidamanuri Ramana Kumari v. Erukula Sesha Rao he contended that the contribution of the deceased should be taken at least at Rs.10,000/- p.a. and in view of Schedule II of the Act, the appropriate multiplier as mentioned in Schedule II. has to be adopted and if it is so done, the appellants would be entitled to the compensation claimed.

8. The contention of the learned counsel for the second respondent is that since the Apex Court in Bijoy Kumar Dugar v. Bidyadhar Dutf, held that dependency has to be worked out on the basis of the earnings of the deceased at the time of the accident and that the claimants have to prove that the deceased could have earned more amount from time to time or had special merits or qualifications or opportunity which would have improved his income in future, and have also observed that in case of unmarried victims, the dependency has to be calculated on the basis that he would get married and will have to raise a family and the monthly allowances he would be giving to his parents would be cut down, the compensation arrived at by the Tribunal cannot be said to be erroneous.

9. Since the appellants are the parents of the unmarried deceased, it is not the age of the deceased but, it is the age of the mother of the deceased i.e. second appellant, is relevant for fixing the appropriate multiplier. Appellants did not adduce any reliable evidence to show their ages. Unfortunately, the Tribunal without mentioning as to how it has arrived at the figure of Rs.1,00,000/- granted a lumpsum compensation of RS.1 ,00,000/- to the appellants. So, the basis on which that figure was fixed by the Tribunal is not known. The Tribunals while awarding compensation should state under what heads they a