JUDGMENT : M.Y. Eqbal, J. This appeal has been filed by the claimants-appellants for enhancement of compensation amount awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lohardaga in Compensation Case No. 100 of 2001 whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,98,384/-on account of death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident. 2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: On 4.3.2001, the deceased, Hafiz @ Aziz Ansari, was going to Lohardaga for sale and purchase of ice-cream on his bicycle. On the way, he was dashed by a truck bearing Registration No. BTR-42-G-7205 being driven rashly and negligently resulting his death on the spot. The deceased was 40 years old and according to the claimants, deceased was labourer and by selling ice-cream he was earning Rs. 2500/-per month. The deceased left behind a widow, four minor sons, two minor daughters and father. 3. The Tribunal after considering the facts came to a finding that the accident took place because of rash and negligent driving of the truck which was duly insured with respondent-United India Insurance Co. Ltd. However, on the issue of quantum of compensation, the Tribunal, in spite of sufficient evidence adduced by the claimants on the income of the deceased, recorded a finding that the income of daily-wages labourer comes to Rs. 73/-per day for 26 days. The Tribunal took different income for seven months and different income for five months and in this way, assessed annual income of the deceased at Rs. 23,286/. Out of the aforesaid amount, 1/3rd was deducted towards personal expenses. Thereafter, taking multiplier, the Tribunal assessed compensation of Rs. 2,48,384/-. The Tribunal further held that since there is no delay from the side of the Insurance Company, the claimants are not entitled to interest on the principal amount of compensation. 4. I have heard Mr. Rajiv Anand, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants and, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. Prima facie, we are of the view that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the law that while awarding compensation in case of death of a bread-earner, the Tribunal is not supposed to go into technicalities and arithmetical calculations. The Tribunal must bear in mind that in case of death of a bread-earner, dependents should be compensated in such a way that they should not be put in starvation. 6. The Tribunal must bear in mind that in case of death of a bread-earner, dependents should be compensated in such a way that they should not be put in starvation. 6. In dealing with the matter relating to assessment of amount that the deceased must have been spending upon himself, there can be no hard and fast rule for determining such amount. This is a matter to be considered having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. It must be kept in mind that for the expenses of the family or the household, there must be inflexible item of expenditure. While fixing the loss of dependency, it would not be proper to take into consideration only the actual expenses incurred for the maintenance of the family. 7. In calculating monthly dependency, the Tribunal used to deduct 1/3rd of the total earning as a matter of routine without considering actual amount which the deceased was using as his personal expenses. It is well settled that deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased is not a thumb rule. The deduction depends upon the number of legal representatives. Where the number of dependents is more, the lesser deduction has been permitted by the courts and where income is meager, the courts have even held that no deduction should be made towards personal expenses. 8. Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the Supreme Court observed: “14. The lack of uniformity and consistency in awarding compensation has been a matter of grave concern. Every district has one or more Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals. If different Tribunals calculate compensation differently on the same facts, the claimant, the litigant, the common man will be confused, perplexed and bewildered. If there is significant divergence among the Tribunals in determining the quantum of compensation on similar facts, it will lead to dissatisfaction and distrust in the system. 17. Assessment of compensation though involving certain hypothetical considerations, should nevertheless be objective. Justice and justness emanate from equality in treatment, consistency and thoroughness in adjudication, and fairness and uniformity in the decision-making process and the decisions. While it may not be possible to have mathematical precision or identical awards in assessing compensation, same or similar facts should lead to awards in the same range. Justice and justness emanate from equality in treatment, consistency and thoroughness in adjudication, and fairness and uniformity in the decision-making process and the decisions. While it may not be possible to have mathematical precision or identical awards in assessing compensation, same or similar facts should lead to awards in the same range. When the factors/inputs are the same, and the formula/legal principles are the same, consistency and uniformity, and not divergence and freakiness, should be the result of adjudication to arrive at just compensation. The Supreme Court further observed: 26. It is also very difficult for the respondents in a claim petition to produce evidence to show that the deceased was spending a considerable part of the income on himself or that he was contributing only a small part of the income on his family. Therefore, it became necessary to standardise the deductions to be made under the head of personal and living expenses of the deceased. This lead to the practice of deducting towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, one-third of the income if the deceased was married, and one-half (50%) of the income if the deceased was a bachelor. This practice was evolved out of experience, logic and convenience. In fact one- third deduction got statutory recognition under the Second Schedule to the Act, in respect of claims u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the MV Act", for short). But, such percentage of deduction is not an inflexible rule and offers merely a guideline. 31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parents and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. 9. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. 9. In the instant case, as noticed above, the deceased was maintaining his family consisting of a widow, six minor children and a father who were dependent on him at meager earning of Rs. 2500/-. It is not expected that out of the said monthly earning, he used to spend 1/3rd towards his personal expenses. On the contrary, he must have been spending maximum amount for the maintenance of his family members, not only for providing food and clothes but also for their education, health and other household expenses. 10. In our considered opinion, it is a fit case where only 1/10th of the monthly earning should have been deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. After deducting 1/10th out of the monthly earning of the deceased, the annual dependency comes to Rs. 27000/-. Since the deceased was aged about 40 years, a multiplier of 15 will meet the ends of justice. Hence, taking multiplier of 15, the compensation amount comes to Rs. 4,05,000/-. In our view, therefore, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 4,05,000/-. The said amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum. 11. For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal is allowed and the compensation amount is enhanced to Rs. 4,05,000/-. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced compensation amount minus the amount already paid to the claimants.