Judgment ( 1. ) THESE two appeals, Misc. Appeal No. 150/07 and 151/07, have been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against a common award dated 04. 11. 2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, morena, in Claim Cases No. 33/2006 and 34/2006. Both the claims cases have been arisen from one and the same accident. Both the claim cases have been consolidated by the Claims Tribunal and decided by a common award, hence both the Misc. Appeals have been heard and disposed of by this common order. ( 2. ) ON 29. 03. 2005 Truck No. MP-06-E-3263, which was being driven at the relevant time by respondent No. 2 became turtle near Kotwali Dehat on G. T. Road, bulandshahar. Deceased Mahesh was second driver on the aforesaid truck and deceased Rambraj was the cleaner. In the aforesaid accident second driver, mahesh and cleaner Rambraj, both were died. A report of the accident was lodged at the Police Station, Bulandshahar. On the report a case vide Crime No. 161/05 under sections 279, 338 and 304-A IPC was registered. ( 3. ) THEREAFTER, dependents of deceased persons filed two separate claims applications, claiming a compensation of Rs. 22,83,000/- in Claim Case No. 33/06 filed by dependents of deceased cleaner, Rambraj, who are father, mother, grandfather and two brothers; and Rs. 27,81,000/- in Claim Case No. 34/06 filed by dependents of deceased driver, Mahesh, who are father, mother, grand-father and one brother. Both the deceased were bachelors. ( 4. ) THE Claims Tribunal held that the driver of the truck had a valid driving license. The accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by the driver. The truck was insured by Respondent No. 3, Insurance Company. The Claims Tribunal fixed the liability with regard to payment of compensation jointly and severally of all the respondents. The Claims Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 3,62,000/- with interest @ 6 % per annum in Claim Case No. 34/06 and Rs. 2,27,000/- with interest @ 6 % per annum in Claim Case No. 33/06. ( 5. ) BEING aggrieved by the impugned award the claimants have filed the present appeals. The Insurance Company has also filed Cross-objections in both the appeals on the ground that an excessive award has been passed by the Claims Tribunal. ( 6. 2,27,000/- with interest @ 6 % per annum in Claim Case No. 33/06. ( 5. ) BEING aggrieved by the impugned award the claimants have filed the present appeals. The Insurance Company has also filed Cross-objections in both the appeals on the ground that an excessive award has been passed by the Claims Tribunal. ( 6. ) LEARNED counsel for appellants has submitted that Claims Tribunal has illegally reduced the compensation from Rs. 4,80,000/- to Rs. 3,50,000/- in Claims case No. 34/06 and similarly from Rs. 3,60,000/- to Rs. 2,60,000/- in Claims Case no. 33/06. For this purpose the reason mentioned by the Claims Tribunal because all the amount has been paid to the claimants at once, hence the amount has been reduced is arbitrary and illegal. Learned counsel further submitted that that the claims Tribunal has also not considered the income of the deceased persons properly. In support of his contentions learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Gurmit Kaur and another v. State of Haryana and others, reported in 2000 ACJ 557, Division Bench decisions of this Court in gaji Bai and others v. Ratan Lal and others reported in 2007 ACJ 297 and in smt. Shakuntala and others v. Kanna Dangi and others, reported in 2007 (3)TAC 516 (MP) and also a Single Bench judgment of Karnataka High Court in united India Insurance Co, Ltd. v. M. Anusuya and others reported in 2008 acj 380. ( 7. ) CONTRARY to this learned counsel for Insurance Company - respondent, has submitted that the Claims Tribunal has awarded an excessive amount of compensation. It has calculated the income of the deceased in both claims cases on higher side and also applied a wrong multiplier. Dependency has also been fixed by the Claims Tribunal in both cases on higher side. In support of his contentions learned counsel relied upon judgments of Honble the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Saftender and others, reported in MACD 2007 (1) (SC) 138, and Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Vs. Mohd. Jameel and another, Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2009 (Arising out of S. L. P. (c) No. 18001 of 2006), decided on 06. 01. 2009, and Division Bench judgment of this Court in Misc. Appeal No. 551/1999, Ramkishore Dixit and others v. Ramcharan and others, decided on 07. 02. 2006. ( 8. Mohd. Jameel and another, Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2009 (Arising out of S. L. P. (c) No. 18001 of 2006), decided on 06. 01. 2009, and Division Bench judgment of this Court in Misc. Appeal No. 551/1999, Ramkishore Dixit and others v. Ramcharan and others, decided on 07. 02. 2006. ( 8. ) BOTH the claims cases have been consolidated by the Claims Tribunal vide order dated 22. 07. 2006. In one case the Insurance Company filed an application for permission to contest the case on all counts under section 170 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988. The Claims Tribunal granted permission to the Insurance company to contest the case on all counts under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles act vide order dated 22. 7. 2006. ( 9. ) IN Claims Case No. 33/06 claimants have pleaded that deceased Rambraj had been working as Cleaner on Truck No. MP-06-E-3263. He had been getting rs. 3000/- per month as salary and Rs. 50/- per day as allowance for meals. Same facts have been stated by Jodharam, father of the deceased, Rambraj, in his evidence. In Claim Case No. 34/06 the claimants have pleaded that deceased mahesh had been working as second driver on Truck No. MP-06-E-3263 and he was getting Rs. 4000/- per month towards salary plus Rs. 50 per day allowance for meals. Same facts have been stated by Vasudev, father of the deceased Mahesh, in his evidence before the Tribunal. ( 10. ) ON the basis of the evidence of fathers of both deceased persons the Claims tribunal has held the income of the deceased Mahesh, driver, as Rs. 4000/- per month and the income of the deceased, Rambraj, cleaner, as Rs. 3000/- per month. The owner of the truck, Non-applicant /respondent No. 1, has not entered into the witness box, however, in his written statement he accepted the pleadings of claimants that the driver was getting Rs. 4000/- per month and Rs. 50/- per day allowance for meals and cleaner was getting Rs. 3000/- per month and Rs. 50 per day allowance for meals. On the basis of aforesaid evidence the Claims Tribunal fixed the dependency of the claimants 2/3rd andapplied multiplier of 15 in Claims no. 33/06 and 16 in. Claim Case No. 34/06. ( 11. 4000/- per month and Rs. 50/- per day allowance for meals and cleaner was getting Rs. 3000/- per month and Rs. 50 per day allowance for meals. On the basis of aforesaid evidence the Claims Tribunal fixed the dependency of the claimants 2/3rd andapplied multiplier of 15 in Claims no. 33/06 and 16 in. Claim Case No. 34/06. ( 11. ) FROM the facts of the case it is clear that the income of the deceased has been fixed by the Claims Tribunal in both the claim cases on the basis of oral evidence of fathers of the deceased persons, driver and cleaner of the truck. Although, there is an admission on behalf of owner of the truck with regard to salary of the deceased persons but the owner has not been examined in Court neither any salary slips of the deceased persons have been filed in both the cases. ( 12. ) IN a recent judgment in Syed Basheer Ahamed and others vs. Mohd. Jameel and another, in Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2009 (arising out of S. L. P. (C)No. 18001 of 2006) Honble the Supreme Court has held as under with regard to power of the Claims Tribunal to determine the amount of compensation, which appears to be just under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act :- "9. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Tribunal to make an award determining "the amount of compensation which appears to be just. " However, the objective factors, which may constitute the basis of compensation appearing as just, have not been indicated in the Act. Thus, the expression "which appears to be just" vests a wide discretion in the Tribunal in the matter of determination of compensation. Nevertheless, the wide amplitude of such power does not empower the Tribunal to determine the compensation arbitrarily, or to ignore settled principles relating to determination of compensation. Similarly, although the Act is a beneficial legislation, it can neither be allowed to be used as a source of profit, nor as a windfall to the persons affected nor should it be punitive to the person (s) liable to pay compensation. The determination of compensation must be based on certain data, establishing reasonable nexus between the loss incurred by the dependents of the deceased and the compensation to be awarded to them. The determination of compensation must be based on certain data, establishing reasonable nexus between the loss incurred by the dependents of the deceased and the compensation to be awarded to them. In nutshell, the amount of compensation determined to be payable to the claimant (s) has to be fair and reasonable by accepted legal standards. " Honble the Supreme Court further held as under with regard to factors to be taken into consideration to ascertain the net income of the deceased :- "13. Thus, for arriving at just compensation, it is necessary to ascertain the net income of the deceased available for the support of himself and his dependents at the time of his death and the amount, which he was accustomed to spend upon himself. This exercise has to be on the basis of the data, brought on record by the claimant, which again cannot be accurately ascertained and necessarily involves an element of estimate or it may. partly be even a conjecture. The figure arrived at by deducting from the net income of the deceased such part of income as he was spending upon himself, provides a datum, to convert into a lump sum, by compitalising it by an appropriate multiplier (when multiplier method is adopted ). An appropriate multiplier is again determined by taking into consideration several imponderable factors. Since in the present case there is no dispute in regard to the multiplier, we deem it unnecessary to dilate on the issue. " ( 13. ) ALTHOUGH, the claimants have pleaded the income of the deceased persons, who had been working at the relevant time as driver and cleaner as Rs. 4000/- and rs. 3000/- per month respectively plus Rs. 50/- per day allowance for meals, however, in my opinion, it would be just and proper to fix the income of the deceased driver, who was driving a heavy vehicle in the year 2005, at Rs. 4000/- per month, including Rs. 50/- per day allowance for meals and the income of the Cleaner, who had been working as cleaner at the relevant time at Rs. 3000/- per month, including rs. 50/- per day allowance for meals. Honble the Supreme Court in Laxmi Devi and others v. Mohammad Tabbar and another, reported in 2008 ACJ 1488 has fixed Rs. 3000/- per month as notional income and held as under :- "7. 3000/- per month, including rs. 50/- per day allowance for meals. Honble the Supreme Court in Laxmi Devi and others v. Mohammad Tabbar and another, reported in 2008 ACJ 1488 has fixed Rs. 3000/- per month as notional income and held as under :- "7. Considering the above principles in this case, we must say that the High Court has definitely erred in bringing down the multiplier to 12. It is to be seen that in this case the deceased was 35 years old. The claimants are his wife and the four minor daughters. Even as per the Second Schedule the multiplier in case of the persons between 3 5 and 40 years is 16. In the present case the rate of interest granted is only 6 per cent considering the general rate of interest prevalent in 2004. In our opinion, therefore, the proper multiplier would be 14 as the value of the notional income has been increased. It was nobodys case that the deceased was not working at all. His wife has entered in the witness-box and has asserted that he earned Rs. 140 per day. Even if we ignore the exaggeration, the figure arrive at by the High Court at Rs. 100 per day and Rs. 3,000 per month appears to be correct. " ( 14. ) WITH regard to dependency, it is an admitted fact that both the deceased persons were bachelors. The claimants in Claim Case No. 33/06 are father, mother, grand-father and two brothers, who are aged 20 years and 16 years. It is clear that one brother is major. Similarly, in Claim Case No. 34/06 claimants are father, mother, grand-father and one brother, who is aged about 17 years. ( 15. ) HONble the Supreme Court in the case of Fakeerappa and another v. Karnataka Cement Pipe factory and others, reported in 2004 ACJ 184 , has held that any rigid rule or formula with regard to applying the dependency cannot be applied with universal application, which is as under :- "6. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2, submitted that there cannot be any rigid formula as to what would be the percentage or quantum of deduction. The Tribunal and the High court have taken note of the relevant aspects to hold that 50 per cent deduction would be appropriate. There is no scope for any interference with the percentage of deduction as fixed. The Tribunal and the High court have taken note of the relevant aspects to hold that 50 per cent deduction would be appropriate. There is no scope for any interference with the percentage of deduction as fixed. Further, before the High Court there was no challenge to the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, for the first time before this court such a grievance cannot be raised. It is also submitted that the multiplier of 18 as adopted is on the higher side. 7. What would be the percentage of deduction for personal expenditure cannot be governed by any rigid rule or formula of universal application. It would depend upon the circumstances of each case. The deceased undisputedly was a bachelor. Stand of the insurer is that after marriage, the contribution to the parents would have been lesser and, therefore, taking an over all view the tribunal and the High Court were justified in fixing the deduction. " The aforesaid judgment has further been relied by Honble the Supreme court in the case of Managing Director, Bangalore Metropolitan Transport corporation Vs. Sarojamma and another, reported in 2008 (2) T. A. C. 756 (SC ). Honble the Supreme Court further in the case of Kamla Sharma and another Vs. M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , reported in MACD 2008 (2) 420, with regard to dependency has held as under :- "12. There was one other point which was raised by Mr. Rai regarding the assessment of the loss of dependency which according to him should not have been taken as 50 % but one third as is generally taken in similar cases. On this point we are in agreement with Mr. Rai and we feel that both the farums below took a wrong view of the matter and that loss of dependency should have been taken as 1/3rd and not 50 % as has been awarded. " Further the Honble Supreme Court in recent judgment in Syed Basheer ahamed and others vs. Mohd. Jameel and another, in Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2009 (arising out of S. L. P. (C) No. 18001 of 2006) has held as under with regard to dependency :- "18. " Further the Honble Supreme Court in recent judgment in Syed Basheer ahamed and others vs. Mohd. Jameel and another, in Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2009 (arising out of S. L. P. (C) No. 18001 of 2006) has held as under with regard to dependency :- "18. On the question of deduction on account of personal expenses by the deceased, there is no set formula which could be applied in every case to determine as to what should be the deduction on this account. The contention that deduction on that count cannot exceed one-third on the ground that there is some statutory recognition in the Second Schedule to the Act for such deduction, is untenable. The said deduction would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case no evidence was led on this point as well. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the practice is to deduct towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, one-third of the income in case he was married and one-half (50%) if he was a bachelor. Thus, there is no material on record warranting interference with the consistent view of both the courts below on the point. " A Division Bench of this Court in Ramkishore Dixit and others vs. Ramcharan and others, Misc. Appeal No. 551/99, decided on 07. 02. 2006, has held as under :- "8. We have perused the decision of the Supreme Court in donant Lbuis Machado (supra) and we find that in the said decision no general principle was laid down by the Supreme Court that in each and every case the loss of dependency of the parents should be worked out 1/3rd of the income of the deceased. The said decision, therefore, does not lay down any binding law that the dependency will have to be worked out at 1/3rd income of the deceased in every case coming before the Court. As has been observed by the Supreme Court in Lata Wadha (supra), in every case it is the overall picture that matters and the Court must try to assess a best it can, the loss suffered. In the present case, the mother, father and three minor brothers overall dependents and it is difficult to accept out of his total income, the deceased was only spending 2/3rd of his income on himself. In the present case, the mother, father and three minor brothers overall dependents and it is difficult to accept out of his total income, the deceased was only spending 2/3rd of his income on himself. Similarly, if we adopt the mode of calculation in accordance with decision of the supreme Court in Trilok Chand and others (supra), then the family of the deceased comprises of 9 units (father, mother, deceased and three minor brothers) and the expenditure will work out to 2/9 of his income which also is not probable. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case it is more reasonable to hold that the deceased was spending only 1/3rd of his income on himself and 2/3rd on his father, mother and three minor brothers. Hence, loss of dependency for the claimants would work out at 2/3rd of the income of the deceased. " ( 16. ) LOOKING to the above principle of law laid down by Honble the Supreme court and Division Bench of this Court, in my opinion, looking to the fact that the claimants are father, mother, grand-father and only one brother, who is minor, it would be just and proper to fix the dependency 50%. Hence, the annual loss of income to the claimants of deceased Mahesh, driver, in Claim Case No. 34/06 comes to (Rs. 4000/- x 12 ) = Rs. 48,000/-, on the basis of 50% dependency rs. 24,000/- per annum. Similarly, annual loss of income to the claimants of deceased Rambraj, Cleaner, in Claim Case No. 33/06 comes to (Rs. 3000 x 12) = rs. 36,000/-, on the basis of 50 % dependency Rs. 18,000/ -. as per the judgment of Honble the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shanti Devi, reported in 2007 (4) T. A. C. 17 (SC) the multiplier has to be applied as per the age of the mother. In both claims cases the age of the mother has been mentioned as 48 years and looking to Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in my opinion, the multiplier of 13 would be applicable. ( 17. ) CONSEQUENTLY, in Claim Case No. 33/06 the claimants are entitled to get a total compensation of (Rs. 18,000/- x 13) = Rs. 2,34,000/- plus Rs. 15,000/- on other heads = total Rs. ( 17. ) CONSEQUENTLY, in Claim Case No. 33/06 the claimants are entitled to get a total compensation of (Rs. 18,000/- x 13) = Rs. 2,34,000/- plus Rs. 15,000/- on other heads = total Rs. 2,49,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs and Forty Nine Thousand only)and the claimants in Claims Case No. 34/06 are entitled to get a total compensation of (Rs. 24,000 X 13) = Rs. 3,12,000/- plus Rs. 15,000/- on other heads = Rs. 3,27,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs and Twenty Seven Thousand only ). ( 18. ) CONSEQUENTLY, both the Misc. Appeals filed by the claimants are hereby dismissed and the Cross-objections filed by respondent No. 3, Insurance Company, are allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. The amount of compensation awarded by this Court in both the cases shall carry interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim applications upto realization. In case, the Insurance Company has already paid any excess amount to the amount determined by this Court to the claimants, it is at liberty to recover the same from claimants. Rest of the terms and conditions shall be as per the award passed by the Claims Tribunal. No order as to cost. Appeal dismissed.