G. Bhavani Prasad, J.

1. Both the civil miscellaneous appeals arise out of the same award dated 17.2.2009 in O.P. No. 538 of 2007 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Manila Court)-cum-XIX Additional Chief Judge, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad. The factual background for these two appeals is that on 25.4.2005 at about 8.30 p.m. when John Maislamani was going for a walk near Naz Hotel, he was dashed against by motor cycle bearing No. AP 10-AE 5033 driven rashly and negligently. He was shifted to Railway Hospital, but succumbed to the injuries on 3.5.2005. The brother of the deceased and his wife were taking care of the deceased, brought him up and educated him and, therefore, the deceased was contributing his income entirely to the claimants. The claimants, therefore, sought for a compensation of Rs. 8,50,000/- due to loss of dependency and future support.

2. While the owner of the motor cycle remained ex-parte, the insurer denied the allegations of the claimants, denied any negligence on the part of the motorcyclist, denied any licence for the driver or any insurance coverage for the vehicle and desired the claim to be negatived. Permission u/s 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was obtained as per orders in I.A. No. 24 of 2009.

3. The Tribunal framed issues on the responsibility for the accident and entitlement of the claimants to compensation.

4. PWs 1 to 3 and RW 1 were examined and Exhs. A1 to A8 and B1 to B3 were marked during the inquiry.

5. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award, firstly, accepting the evidence of the eyewitness to the accident, PW 2, corroborated by the contents of first information report, Exh. A1; charge-sheet, Exh. A2; and inquest report, Exh. A4. The Tribunal referred to binding precedents from this court to accept the evidence of PW 2, though he was not cited in the charge-sheet and concluded that the accident occurred due to rashness and negligence in driving the motor cycle. The Tribunal considered the claimant No. 1 to be the legal representative of the deceased as brother, while the petitioner No. 2 was held to be not eligible to be considered as legal representative even if she was dependent on the earnings of the deceased, as the petitioner No. 1, her husband, was earning for himself as a pensioner. With reference to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal considered the gross salary of Rs. 8,716/-, deductions of Rs. 2,527/- and the net salary of Rs. 6,714/- after not deducting the contribution to the provident fund and assessed the loss of dependency at Rs. 3,357/- at 50 per cent of the net salary. The loss of annual dependency was considered Rs. 40,284/- and applying a multiplier of 10 with reference to the age of the deceased, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 4,02,840/- towards loss of future income, apart from Rs. 5,000/- for loss of love and affection. The Tribunal refused to award any sum towards funeral expenses or loss to estate or any other heads of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and the compensation rounded off to Rs. 4,08,000/- was directed to carry interest at 7 per cent per annum and proportionate costs. Accordingly, the claim of the petitioner No. 2 was dismissed and the claim of the petitioner No. 1 was allowed in part.

6. In M.A.C.M.A. No. 3087 of 2009, the insurer challenged the award contending that both the claimants were not dependent on the deceased and the claimant No. 1, being a government employee with an independent source of income, cannot be claimed to be the legal heir of the deceased. The appellant also contended that the Tribunal could not have assessed the contribution to the family at 2/3rd of the income, more so, when the elder brother and his family have independent source of income. The appellant also contended that the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act has no application in view of the annual income of the deceased being more than Rs. 40,000/- and as per Bhagwandas Vs. Moh