( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant Sri G. Krishnamurthy and Sri H. G. Ramesh, learned Counsel for the Insurance company-respondent 3. None appears for respondents 1 and 2.

( 2 ) THIS appeal arises from M. V. C. No. 191 of 1987, decided by the Principal District Judge and Member, Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Kolar, allowing the claim of the claimant for compensation in part, the Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs, 38,000/- in total, as also interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum.

( 3 ) THE only point in dispute that has been raised is the quantum of compensation. The claimant-appellant is dissatisfied with the amount so awarded. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the compensation awarded is inadequate and it requires enhancement.

( 4 ) TO complete the facts, it is proper to mention that on 11-6-87, the lorry belonging to respondent 2 and driven by respondent 1, bearing Registration No. MYA-5016, made an accident and in that accident Narayanaswamy aged about 18 years died. According to the claimant who is the sister of deceased Narayanaswamy, deceased was hale and healthy at the time of accident, the deceased was living with the claimant and maintaining the family of the claimant who is the elder sister of the deceased. Claimant's case is that on account of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry, the accident did occur and it dashed against Narayanaswamy which resulted in causing fatal injuries and ultimately in the death of Narayanaswamy. So the claimant filed the claim petition claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 2 lakhs. It has been stated in the claim petition that at the time and immediately earlier to the accident, deceased narayanaswamy was working as a cleaner and agriculturist. His monthly income was about Rs. 1,200/- per month.

( 5 ). The respondents filed the written statement and contested the averments made in the claim petition. It was also asserted by the opposite parties-respondents, that the income of deceased was not more than Rs. 100/- per month and it was asserted that the claim was excessive.

( 6 ) ON the basis of the pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:1. Whether the accident in question had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No. MYA-5016? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3. Relief?

( 7 ) THE Tribunal after having perused the record and the material on record held that the fatal accident, which had caused the death of Narayanaswamy had occurred on account of and due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the driver of the lorry who is respondent I in the claim petition, as well as in the memo of appeal. The Tribunal as such awarded compensation in total to the tune of Rs. 38,000/-, the bifurcation of which is as under:

( 8 ) THUS a total sum of Rs, 38,000/- with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum, was awarded. The Tribunal further held that Insurance Company's liability is also extended to the same extent as that of the owner of the lorry and all the three were jointly and severally responsible to pay the compensation, with interest and costs.

( 9 ) THE claimant as mentioned earlier has preferred this appeal as she feels that the compensation awarded is not sufficient, but too meagre. Learned Counsel for the appellant has laid great emphasis on this aspect of the matter, particularly with respect to loss of dependency. Learned Counsel submitted that for loss of dependency, compensation at least of Rs. 60,000/- should have been awarded. He further submitted that interest at the rate of 9 per cent is also less and it should have been more. The contentions of the learned Counsel for the appellant have been hotly contested by respondent 3's learned Counsel Sri H. G. Ramesh. Sri H. G. Ramesh contended that deceased was a bachelor and he was not a married person. He had