( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the claimants seeking for enhancement of compensation.

( 2 ) IT is relevant to notice the brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal. While the deceased, viz. , T. K. Shivaram was walking by the side of the road on 24. 7. 97 near the private bus station at Veerarajpet town, the bus bearing registration No. KA 12-2159 came from behind and dashed against him resulting in serious injuries. He succumbed to the injuries in the hospital on 20. 8. 1997. In due course, the widow and son of the deceased filed a claim petition for compensation in M. V. C. No. 123 of 1997 and the brother of the deceased also filed a claim in M. V. C. No. 136 of1997.

( 3 ) THE Tribunal, after holding inquiry, by a common judgment in respect of the aforesaid two claims held that the deceased died due to the accident and the said accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the bus and accordingly by the impugned judgment awarded a compensation of rs. 35,000 along with interest at 6 per cent per annum to the widow and son of the deceased in M. V. C. No. 123 of 1997 and similarly awarded Rs. 15,000 with interest at 6 per cent per annum to the brother of the deceased in M. V. C. No. 136 of 1997. The award amount was made payable jointly and severally by the owner and insurer of the bus.

( 4 ) THE present appeal has been filed by the widow and son of the deceased, who were claimants in M. V. C. No. 123 of 1997, seeking for enhancement of compensation.

( 5 ) THE finding recorded by the Tribunal that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the bus has become final and was not disputed by the respondentsbefore us.

( 6 ) THE only question that arises for consideration is as to whether the appellants, viz. , the claimants in M. V. C. No. 123 of 1997 are entitled for the enhancement of compensation.

( 7 ) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

( 8 ) LEARNED Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head 'loss of dependency' on the ground that appellantsclaimants, i. e. , widow and son of the deceased were not living with the deceased and were not factually depending on him prior to the accident. It is true that the evidence on record suggest that the claimants in M. V. C. No. 123 of 1997 were not living with the deceased prior to the accident.

( 9 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal was not right in law in denying compensation to the appellants towards 'loss of dependency'. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the insurance company supported the impugned judgment and award.

( 10 ) IN the light of above submissions, we will have to consider the short but interesting question of law as to whether the approach of the Claims Tribunal in not awarding compensation to the appellants who are the widow and son of the deceased towards 'loss of dependency' was correct in law.

( 11 ) AS noticed above, the widow was not living with her deceased husband. But there is no evidence on record to show that appellant No. 1, widow of the deceased, was judicially separated or that she was self-reliant. She remained to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased till his death. Hence, the deceased had the obligation in law to maintain her. Accordingly, in law, the widow, though was living separately should be deemed to be a 'dependant' on the income of the deceased as the deceased had the legal obligation to maintain her till the date of his death. Accordingly, in our opinion, she is entitled to be compensated under the head 'loss of dependency' also. This aspect could be examined from another angle also. Appellant No. 1 widow of the deceased had the right in law to obtain maintenance from the deceased during his lifetime. Hence, her right to obtain maintenance subsisted as on the date of death of the deceased. As the widow had no source of income on her own and as the deceased had the statutory duty to maintain her and the widow had the statutory rig