JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, C.J. 1. Heard Mr. A.M. Malhotra, Learned Counsel for the Appellants and Mr. Zochhuana, learned Counsel for the Respondents. The Appellants are Insurance Companies and they are aggrieved by an award dated 14th July, 2009, passed by the M.A.C.T., Aizawl in M.A.C. Case No. 56/06. 2. Admittedly the Respondent No. 1 (the claimant) was injured in a motor accident and suffered 35% permanent disability. The disability was in the nature of fracture traverse L-1 (2)(3) fracture L-3 spinal. 3. The Claimant was doing her own business and earning an amount of Rs. 3,500/- per month. She has undergone treatment with several doctors and she claimed to have spent Rs. 27,000/- on her medical treatment. This is admitted by the Appellants. 4. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and recording evidence, the learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 6,72,000/- as pecuniary damages to the claimant taking the multiplier to be 16 and non pecuniary damages of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition was also awarded to the claimant. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has not take into consideration the fact that 1/3rd of the income of the claimant is required to be deducted towards her personal living expenses. If this deduction is made, the awarded amount will be much less. 6. In support of their contention that l/3rd of the income should be deducted towards living expenses, learned Counsel for the Appellants relied upon Sunil Kumar v. Ram Singh Gaud and Ors., (2007) 14 SCC 61 : 2008 (1) T.A.C. 9. In this case, the claimant suffered permanent disability of 45% and in paragraph 9 of the report of the Supreme Court deducted 1/ 3rd of the income towards miscellaneous expenses and on this basis an award was made in favour of the claimant with 5% interest per annum. In Rani Gupta and Ors. v. United India Insurance Company Ltd., and Ors., (2009) 13 SCC 498 : 2009 (2) T.A.C. 745, the Supreme Court referred to Sunil Kumar in paragraph 15 of the report and concluded that ordinarily and subject to just exceptions a lump sum amount equivalent to 1/3rd of the income of the deceased, i.e., living and miscellaneous expenses from the income should be deducted. In the case of permanent disability a direction to deduct such an amount may not be insisted upon, but deduction of 1/3rd of the income for living expenses is the ordinary rule. 7. Relying on these two decisions it is submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3rd of the income of the claimant towards living and miscellaneous expenses in this case since no special circumstances was pointed out by the claimant for not making such a deduction. 8. Learned Counsel for the claimant has not been able to point out any special circumstances to show why a deduction of 1/3rd of the income towards living and miscellaneous expenses should not be made. 9. Learned Counsel for the Appellants have also pointed out that the learned Tribunal made the award on the basis that the claimant has suffered 100% permanent disability while in fact the permanent disability was to be extent of only 35%. This too has not been taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar. 10. On a reading to the award, I find considerable force in this submission made by learned Counsel for the Appellants. Therefore, taking all these facts into consideration, the appropriate amount to be awarded to the claimant would be as follows: Rs. 3,500 x 12 (annual income) multiplied by 16 (multiplier) multiplied by 35/100 (disability percentage) divided by 2/3 (total income less 1.3 towards living expenses). 35 x 16x 35x 2 ........... = Rs. 1,56,800/- 100x3 11. It may be mentioned that there is no dispute about the multiplier to be adopted in this case. 12. Insofar as the expenses incurred by the claimant for medical treatment are concerned, the learned Tribunal has not taken this amount into consideration at all. The admitted expenditure incurred is in the region of Rs. 27,000/- and, therefore, to round up the total compensation that should be awarded to the claimant, I modify the award passed by the learned Tribunal and assess the compensation at Rs. 1,56,800+ Rs. 27,000/-= Rs. 1,90,000/-. In so far as the interest amount is concerned, the admitted prevailing Reserve Bank of India rate is 7% per annum. 13. 27,000/- and, therefore, to round up the total compensation that should be awarded to the claimant, I modify the award passed by the learned Tribunal and assess the compensation at Rs. 1,56,800+ Rs. 27,000/-= Rs. 1,90,000/-. In so far as the interest amount is concerned, the admitted prevailing Reserve Bank of India rate is 7% per annum. 13. Under the circumstances the Appellants should pay to the claimant interest at 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition, i.e., 5th June, 2006, till the payment is made in full on the principal awarded sum of Rs. 1,90,000/- 14. There is no modification of the direction given by the learned Tribunal that each of the Appellants will pay 50% of the aforesaid amount of the claimant. However, the payment should be made on or before 30th November, 2010. 15. The appeals are disposed off on the above terms. There will be no order as to costs. 16. Trial Court recorded be sent back immediately.