JUDGMENT L. Narayana Swamy, J : The appeal by the appellant - insurance company challenging the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal on the ground of quantum and negligence. 2. It is the contention of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that the negligence aspect has not been considered by the Tribunal. The contribution of the deceased should have been taken and eventually negligence should have been fastened on the deceased also for the purpose of calculating the award. The second ground taken by the appellant is in respect of the deduction towards persona] expenses. The claimant petitioner is the sole dependent of her deceased husband, when such being the case, 50% of personal and living expenses has to be deducted. Consequently learned Counsel submitted to reduce the compensation awarded by taking into consideration the negligence and also 50% for personal expenses. 3. The facts leading to the case are: - The husband of the petitioner died in an accident which occurred on 17.10.2005 while he was riding a Bajaj Chetak Scooter bearing No. KA 19/L-9179. The offending vehicle being a motor cycle which came in opposite side and caused the accident resulting in the death of husband of the claimant, A claim has been made in MVC No. 361/2006. The police have registered a case for the offences punishable under Section IPC and also MV Act. Rider of the offending vehicle that is, a motor cycle No. KA/14/E-5192 has been charge sheeted. On behalf of the petitioner PW2 and PW3 have been examined claiming that they are the eyewitnesses to the accident. Ex. PI is the FIR wherein a complaint has been made against the offending vehicle and Ex. P2 is the complaint. Exhibits P3, P5 and P6 are the spot mahazar, M.V. report and police notice in respect there to. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that since the claimant is the sole dependant of the, deceased, the Tribunal should have deducted personal and living expenses at the rate of 50%. In support of his submission, he referred to the judgments in 1996 ACJ 831 SC in the case of Trilohchandra Vs. Kerala Road Transportation Corporation. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment referred to supra has held that the deduction in the case of a death of a bachelor, it should be 50% towards personal expenses. In support of his submission, he referred to the judgments in 1996 ACJ 831 SC in the case of Trilohchandra Vs. Kerala Road Transportation Corporation. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment referred to supra has held that the deduction in the case of a death of a bachelor, it should be 50% towards personal expenses. In the judgment of Sarala Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transportation Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 where the Supreme Court after considering the Trilokchandra's case it has clarified that "whenever the deceased is married the deductions towards personal and living, expenses it should be 1/3rd where the number of family members as dependants are 2 to 3." The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the dependants are more than 2 to 3, then the personal and living expenses should be deducted at 1/4th. In both the cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that for deduction of 1/3rd in the case of the dependents are 2 to 3. In the instant case, the deceased was married and he left a wife only. In the case where the sole respondent is the widow of the deceased, 50% has to be deducted for his personal and living expenses. Hence, it is submitted that in a case where there are large number of dependants, the extent of deduction has to be arrived at depending upon number of dependants. Hence, the learned Counsel submitted to modify award by deducting 50% to the pesonal expenses. 5. The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that, the ground taken up by the appellant-insurance company has to be rejected on the ground that the rider of the offending vehicle has been charge sheeted and police records reveal that the contribution of the offending vehicle is 100%. No evidences are available to split the negligence on the part of the deceased. Secondly he also referred to a judgment of Sarla Verma's case referred to supra at Para No. 12 and submitted that the personal living expenses should be deducted from the income to arrive at the contribution to the dependants. The deduction for personal and living expenses of the deceased 1/3rd of the income. If the deceased was married and in a case where the deceased is bachelor then it should be 50%. The deduction for personal and living expenses of the deceased 1/3rd of the income. If the deceased was married and in a case where the deceased is bachelor then it should be 50%. Further his submissions have been substantiated by referring to Para No. 15 of the judgment, wherein it is held that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living' expenses of the deceased would be 1/3rd and in the absence of the evidence to the contrary, in case of brothers and sisters; parents and other dependants at any' cost it cannot be reduced to 50%. 6. He also referred a judgment reported in 2009 ACJ 690 in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Vs. Mohammed Jameel and another at para No. 18. Wherein it is held that for pesonal and living expenses, 1/ 3rd should be deducted in the income of the deceased, in the case of a married, he submitted to dismiss this appeal. 7. I have heard both the parties. The ,undisputed facts are that the petitioner is the sole dependant of the deceased. The husband died leaving behind his wife alone and not other dependants. In a case where the deceased is a bachelor as it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and Trilok chandra cases referred to supra 50% should be deducted for living and personal expenses. Further in the said judgments it has been held that 50% is also flexible depending upon the age of the deceased where he is a bachelor or a married person. But it is settled portion of law in a case where the deceased is a bachelor arid the number of dependants are lesser in number then the deduction would be 50% for personal and living expenses. The fact involved in this case is whether the same analogy should be borrowed and the same is applied in a case like this where the claimant/dependants would only be the sole dependants would only be the sole dependant on the death of her husband. No doubt the petitioner is a sole dependant is it appropriate to deduct 5d% for the personal and living expenses? To answer the said question both the judgments of Sarla Verma and Trilok chandra cases there was no discussion accordingly, I find no reference in these judgments. 8. No doubt the petitioner is a sole dependant is it appropriate to deduct 5d% for the personal and living expenses? To answer the said question both the judgments of Sarla Verma and Trilok chandra cases there was no discussion accordingly, I find no reference in these judgments. 8. In Susamma Thomas's case, at Para No. 13 and in Trilok Chandra's case, it has restricted the personal. and living expenses to the extent of 50Si, in the case of death of a bachelor and it also further held in Sarla Verma's case that deduction should be 1/3rd in case of deceased was, married and dependant family members are 2 to 3. In the instant case, the number of dependants is one, the wife of the deceased. Under these circumstances, where 1/3rd or 50% should be deducted? This question is required to be examined by this Court. When a deceased is a husband and the claimant is a widow and a sole dependant, the socio-economic aspects have to be considered before answering to the said question. If it is a case of death of a wife and the claimant is the husband, it would have been different. If a wife being a sole dependant it has to be considered not on par with the death of a bachelor. In case of death at an early age, widow to spend her rest of life either under the shelter of her parents or brother etc., in the light of the socio-economic aspects, I consider 50% is not an appropriate deduction it should be 1/3 rd. Accordingly, I hold that the Tribunal has considered all these aspects and though such questions have been raised before it. But the answer would be at the rate of 50% or 1/3rd. I answer in favour of deduction of 1/3rd. Accordingly I answer in favour of the claimant. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. 9. The amount in deposit be transmitted to the MACT concerned.