claim petition, as is obvious from the said decision, that the child was assisting his father in the agricultural operations and it was taking into account all such aspects that 30,000/- was fixed notionally as the₹ annual income. In such circumstances, we do not propose to fix the annual income at 30,000/-, but, at the same time, we are of the view₹ that the annual income fixed by the Tribunal in this case has to be enhanced. Taking into account all such aspects we think it appropriate to fix the annual income for the purpose of deciding compensation for loss of dependency as 20,000/-. In the light of the said decision we₹ are also of the view that no deduction has to be made towards personal expenses. A re-assessment of the amount of compensation for loss of dependency would make the appellants entitled to ₹ 3,00,000/( 20,000 x 15). The Tribunal has already granted an amount of₹ ₹ 1,12,500/- under that head and hence, the appellants are entitled to get only an amount of 1,87,500/-. Despite the persuasive argument₹ of the learned counsel that the Tribunal had erred in fixing the compensation under the other heads we are of the view that the Tribunal fixed compensation under other heads mentioned hereinbefore, reasonably and adequately and in such circumstances, we do not propose to interfere with them. In view of the said discussion, the appellants are entitled to get an amount of 2,07,500/- over and₹
