compensation in favour of the claimanVrespondent No.1 Chandrashekhar stating that as they (respondents No. 2 to 5) were not dependent and only respondent No.1 Chandrashekhar was dependent upon the deceased, therefore, the entire amount of compensation may be awarded in favour of respondent No.1 Chandrashekhar. The Tribunal in para-12 ofthe impugned award has also mentioned that on behalf of the appellanVinsurance company neither the fact of the claimant/respondent No.1 Chandrashekhar having been dependent upon the deceased has been challenged in his cross-examination, nor apy'f^s^-c-evidence has been adduced on behalf'of the insurance company 'to^the fact that the claimant/resgpndent No.1 was having his own '•-..*, 'income and at the time of death of Prithviraj Dhruv, he was not dependent upon him. In view of this, there was no reason for the Tribunal to disbelieve the statement of the daimant/respondent No.1 Chandrashekhar, which had remained unrebutted in his crossexamination. As such, on the basis of evidence adduced before the claims Tribunal, it cannot be said that the claimanVrespondent No.1 was not dependent upon the deceased.
