Judgment This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against award dated 21-9-2002 in O.P.No.1425/2001 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Nizamabad (for short "the Tribunal"). The Depot Manager and Managing Director of Maharashtra Road Transport Corporation are the appellants. The claimants who filed the O.P. before the Tribunal are the respondents. One Khetawath Shanker who was aged 48 years, was hit by the vehicle bearing registration No.MH-20/D 4376, belonging to the appellants while he was proceeding on his cycle to Shankarempet Market for selling vegetables. The accident resulted in instantaneous death of the deceased. The respondents who are the legal heirs of the deceased filed the O.P. claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-towards compensation for the death. The Tribunal, following the trial, passed the impugned award awarding compensation of Rs.6,56,500/-. At the hearing, the learned counsel representing the appellants raised two contentions i.e., (i) that the accident occurred on account of head-on collision of the deceased with the bus and therefore there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and that the Tribunal has committed an error in not apportioning the compensation and deducting part of the compensation apportionable to the negligence of the deceased and (ii) that the deceased being an agriculturist, the Tribunal has committed error in not deducting reasonable proportion of the assessed income apart from the personal expenses of the deceased as held by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and another Vs. Jasbir Kaur and others 2003(7) SCC 484 . Opposing the above contentions, Sri V.Tulasi Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence on record, has given a categorical finding that the accident has occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and therefore no interference with the said finding is called for. The learned counsel also contended that as the deceased left behind more than six dependents, the Tribunal committed an error in deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased in stead of 1/5th as held by the Supreme Court in Sarala Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009(3) ALD 83 (S.C.). With respect to the first contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, the Tribunal has discussed the manner in which the accident has occurred. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009(3) ALD 83 (S.C.). With respect to the first contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, the Tribunal has discussed the manner in which the accident has occurred. After analyzing the entire evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and R.W.1, it has held that the oral and documentary evidence clinchingly establishes that the bus belonging to the appellants was the offending vehicle and that it was driven in a rash and negligent manner. In this process, the Tribunal has relied on the evidence of P.W.2 who was an eye witness and has stated that the bus was going in the opposite direction of the deceased driven at a high speed, running over the deceased and hitting his vehicle due to which he has fallen down and sustained bleeding injuries. Though R.W.1, the driver of the bus, deposed that the deceased was coming on the wrong side and that on seeing the bus he tried to go to his left side and in that process lost the balance and fell down, that the handle of the cycle touched the bumper of the bus and the bus was immediately stopped, the Tribunal was not prepared to believe the said evidence. On a careful consideration of the evidence and the finding of the Tribunal, I do not find any reason to come to a different conclusion on the cause of accident. Therefore, this contention of the learned counsel is rejected. As regards the contention of the learned counsel that the Tribunal has committed error in not making deduction from the income assessed by it, I find some force therein. In State of Haryana (1 supra), the Supreme Court held that the normal rule about the deprivation of income is not strictly applicable to cases where the agricultural income is the source and that attending circumstances have to be considered in making such assessment. The Supreme Court observed that in case of agriculturists, the land possessed by the deceased will remain with the claimants as his legal heirs and that there is a possibility of the claimants to look after the agriculture themselves or engaging other persons for this purpose. Applying this ratio to the facts of the present case, the deceased has left behind his widow aged 40 years, four sons and two daughters aged ranging between 20 years and 5 years. Applying this ratio to the facts of the present case, the deceased has left behind his widow aged 40 years, four sons and two daughters aged ranging between 20 years and 5 years. Therefore, it cannot be said that the family of the deceased has lost the entire income which the deceased was earning on the agricultural land. Undoubtedly, on account of the death of the head of the family, the family would have suffered a severe setback leading to deprival of income to some extent. This factor is therefore required to be taken into consideration while assessing the income of the deceased. In the instant case, the Tribunal has assessed Rs.6000/-per month as the income of the deceased. It can therefore be reasonably assumed that with his death the family would have lost income at least an extent of 50% to 60% during initial years. Having regard to the large family left behind the deceased, I feel, estimating the loss at 60% would be reasonable. From this, personal expenses of the deceased are required to be deducted. In Sarala Varma (2 supra), the Supreme Court held that where the number of dependents exceeds six, 1/5th shall be deducted towards personal expenses. The Tribunal has however deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. The award of the Tribunal is thus required to be modified by taking the annual income of the deceased at Rs.43,200/- and deducting 1/5th therefrom towards his personal expenses. The annual loss of dependency thus comes to Rs.34,560/-. This amount requires to be multiplied with 13, with respect to which there is no dispute among the learned counsel for the parties, which comes to Rs.4,49,280/-. The award of the Tribunal is accordingly modified. Needless to observe that the respondents are entitled to compensation towards all other heads as awarded by the Tribunal. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly partly allowed.