JUDGMENT : C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J. 1. This motor accident civil miscellaneous appeal arises out of award dated 26.9.2006 in O.P. No. 52 of 2005, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Warangal (for short 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 8,86,484/- as compensation for the death of the husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondent No. 2. 2. During the pendency of this appeal, respondent No. 1 died. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 2 is the sole surviving legal heir of respondent No. 1. Therefore, the cause of action survived against the respondent No. 2 alone. 3. I have heard Mr. T. Mahender Rao, learned counsel for the appellants-United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Mr. Jayanthi S.C. Sekhar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, and Mr. K. Venkatesh Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No. 3-the owner of the lorry which caused the accident. 4. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are not proposing to question the finding regarding rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry in question. He advanced two contentions, viz., (1) that respondent No. 2 being the sole surviving legal heir of the deceased, the contribution of the deceased to the family should have been restricted to 50 per cent instead of 2/3rd of the income; and (2) that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the fact that respondent No. 2 was being paid Rs. 1,896/- per month up to the age of 25 years, as deposed by PW 3, the Assistant Manager of the deceased's employer. 5. With regard to the first contention of the learned counsel, in my opinion ordinarily the contribution of the income of the deceased to the family is determined qua his marital status and not with reference to the size of the family left behind by him. The learned counsel, however, placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 to support his submission. The learned counsel, however, placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 to support his submission. It is, no doubt, true that in the said judgment, the Supreme Court held that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards his personal and living expenses should be 1/3rd if the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3 and, 1/4th if the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6. The judgment, however, is silent whether higher expenses of the deceased should be inferred if the number of dependants is one. There cannot be any presumption that the deceased would have spent more than 1/3rd of his income for his personal expenses, if he had only one family member. The first contention of the learned counsel is, therefore, rejected. 6. As regards the second contention that since respondent No. 2 was being paid Rs. 1,896 per month by the erstwhile employer of the deceased up to the age of 25 years, the said amount should have been deducted from the loss of income of the deceased, there is nothing on record to show that the appellant has specifically raised this contention before the Tribunal. Had such a contention been raised, that would have given the respondents-claimants an opportunity to meet the same, and the Tribunal, to deal with such a plea. Even in the grounds of appeal, no such specific ground has been raised by the appellants. Since the appellants failed to urge this ground before the Tribunal and also in the appeal, 1 am not inclined to entertain this contention raised for the first time at the hearing. 7. For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. The civil miscellaneous appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.