JUDGMENT : U.C. Maheshwari, J. This appeal is directed by the appellants-claimants u/s 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of the sum awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sagar in Claim Case No. 40 of 2009 vide award dated 31.8.2009 whereby the claim of the appellants with respect to the death of Pappu alias Parmanand, aged 33 years, son of the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 while brother of other appellants, in the alleged vehicular accident has been awarded by saddling the joint and several liability against the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 for the sum of Rs. 1,23,000 along with interest on it at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing the claim petition, i.e., 23.1.2009. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that on 9.12.2008 at about 10 o'clock in the night, the above-mentioned deceased Pappu alias Parmanand was returning to his home from Makronia Square, on the way, the respondent No. 1 while driving the truck bearing registration No. MP 19-HA 0874 in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and dashed against said Pappu alias Parmanand. Resultantly, he fell down, the truck ran over him, consequently, he died on the spot. On receiving the information, a criminal offence was registered against the respondent No. 1 at Padmakar Police Outpost of Police Station Cantt., Sagar for the offence u/s 304A of the Indian Penal Code. After holding the investigation, the respondent No. 1 was charge-sheeted for such offence. As per further averments, the offending truck was registered in the name of respondent No. 2 while the same was insured with respondent No. 3. It is also stated that all the appellants were dependent on the deceased. Due to his untimely death, the appellants have been deprived of their means of livelihood and also of dependency. It is also stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 6,000 per month as he was doing the work of centering in the houses under construction. With these submissions, the appellants have preferred their claim for the sum of Rs. 37,50,000 along with interest on it at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. 2. In the reply of the respondent Nos. 6,000 per month as he was doing the work of centering in the houses under construction. With these submissions, the appellants have preferred their claim for the sum of Rs. 37,50,000 along with interest on it at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. 2. In the reply of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by denying the averments of the claim petition, it is stated that at the time of the accident, aforesaid offending vehicle was driven by the respondent No. 1 with duly effective driving licence and the same was duly insured with the respondent No. 3. In any case, on holding any liability against these respondents regarding the alleged claim then the same be saddled against the respondent No. 3, insurer, as the vehicle was duly insured with it. With these submissions, prayer for dismissal of the claim is made. 3. In reply of the respondent No. 3, insurer, by denying the averments of claim petition, in addition, it is stated that soon after the incident or any subsequent occasion, the information regarding impugned accident was not given to it by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Even the driving licence, registration, insurance policy and other relevant papers were also not made available to it. So in such circumstance, the liability to indemnify the impugned claim could not be saddled against it. As per further averments, on the date of accident the offending truck was driven by respondent No. 1 without having any duly effective driving licence contrary to the terms of the insurance policy, in such premises also the liability to indemnify the claim could not be saddled against it. With these averments, the prayer for dismissal of the claim is made. 4. In the light of the aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal has framed as many as four issues on which the evidence was recorded. On appreciation of the same, it was held that Pappu alias Parmanand died in the alleged road accident because of rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid offending truck by the respondent No. 1 and also held 25 per cent contributory negligence of the deceased as he was walking on the road under the influence of liquor. In such premises, on further appreciation of the evidence, by holding the income of the deceased at Rs. In such premises, on further appreciation of the evidence, by holding the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,400 per month, 1/2 (half) was deducted from it on account of the expenses of the deceased which he would have spent on himself had he been alive and accordingly the annual dependency of the appellants on the deceased was worked out and by applying the multiplier of 10, the total dependency was assessed. Besides this, the sum on the funeral and other traditional heads was also awarded and out of such total assessed sum by deducting 25 per cent on account of contributory negligence of the deceased, the claim of the appellants has been awarded for the sum as mentioned above. On which, the appellants have come to this court for further enhancement of the sum awarded by the Tribunal. 5. Mr. Satyam Agarwal, the learned counsel for the appellants, after taking me through the pleadings, evidence and exhibited documents on record argued that in view of the available unrebutted evidence, there was no occasion before the Tribunal to hold the contributory negligence of the deceased to the extent of 25 per cent in the alleged accident. According to him, firstly, in the lack of any such objection in the reply of the insurer or other respondents, Tribunal did not have any authority to consider such question beyond the pleadings and decide the same against the interest of the claimants. He also argued that under any existing law the right of the deceased to walk on the road after consuming liquor was neither prohibited nor barred, therefore, the Tribunal did not have authority to hold the case of contributory negligence against the deceased Pappu on the ground that he was walking on the road after consuming liquor, unless it is proved that at the time of the accident, the deceased was negligent towards his duties while walking on the road. In that regard, no evidence has been adduced on behalf of any of the respondents and in such premises, firstly, he prayed to set aside the finding of Tribunal whereby after assessing the sum, 25 per cent sum has been deducted by the Tribunal on the head of contributory negligence of the deceased. In that regard, no evidence has been adduced on behalf of any of the respondents and in such premises, firstly, he prayed to set aside the finding of Tribunal whereby after assessing the sum, 25 per cent sum has been deducted by the Tribunal on the head of contributory negligence of the deceased. He further argued that in the available circumstances and looking to the number of dependants of the deceased in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , it was a fit case for deduction of 1/4th sum from the income of the deceased with respect to the expenses of the deceased which he would have spent on himself had he been alive. But contrary to this, 1/2 (half) was deducted by the Tribunal and prayed to modify such finding accordingly. In continuation, he also argued that without taking into consideration the liability of the deceased to maintain the family of 8 members, his monthly income was held only Rs. 2,400 at very lower side, while as per unrebutted evidence on record, in any case, the income of the deceased ought to have been assessed at Rs. 3.000 per month and prayed for modification in the impugned award accordingly. Besides this, he also argued that while assessing the sum, the multiplier has not been adopted by the Tribunal in compliance of the case-law of Sarla Verma (supra), according to which the Tribunal did not have any option except to apply the multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased. Such case-law does not speak of applying the multiplier applicable to the age of the parents, if the claim is preferred by the parents and not the spouse or children of the deceased. In such premises, he prayed to carry out the assessment of the compensation by adopting the multiplier of 16 applicable to the age of the deceased by allowing this appeal. 6. On the other hand, responding to the aforesaid argument, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, insurer, by justifying the impugned award said that in the available circumstances of the case the sum awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. Same is based on proper appreciation of the evidence and also is in conformity with law. 6. On the other hand, responding to the aforesaid argument, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, insurer, by justifying the impugned award said that in the available circumstances of the case the sum awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. Same is based on proper appreciation of the evidence and also is in conformity with law. It does not require any interference for further enhancement at the stage of this appeal. In continuation, he said that even on adopting the legal position settled by the Apex Court in the cited case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the multiplier should be adopted keeping in view the age of the parents and not of the deceased, as on that question, aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court is silent. In continuation, he also said that according to the cited case, the impugned claim being preferred by the parents along with brothers and sisters of the deceased, the total dependency should be worked out after deducting 50 per cent sum from the monthly income of the deceased with respect to the expenses of the deceased which he would have spent on himself had he been alive. In support of his argument, he placed reliance on a decided case of the Division Bench of this court in the matter of Tamarajdhwaj Dahayat and Another Vs. Ramvaran Patel and Others, (2008) ACJ 2782. But in response to some query of the court, he fairly conceded that the defence regarding contributory negligence of the deceased was neither pleaded nor taken in any manner on behalf of the respondents in the Tribunal. But in continuation, by referring to some papers available on record, and the averments of the impugned award, he said that the deceased was walking on the road under the influence of liquor and, therefore, the possibility of happening of the alleged accident due to negligence of the deceased could not be ruled out and prayed for dismissal of this appeal. 7. 7. Having heard the counsel, keeping in view their arguments after going through the record of the Tribunal, impugned award and appeal memo, I am of the considered view that said Pappu died in the alleged accident due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck by respondent No. 1 under the authority of the respondent No. 2 and not because of any contributory negligence on his own part. In the available circumstances for the sake of the argument for a moment, if it is deemed that at the time of accident said Pappu was walking on the road under the influence of liquor then merely on such reason the deceased could not be held guilty for contributory negligence unless it is proved that while walking on the road the deceased had committed any negligence on his part. On the other hand, it is apparent from the record that the respondent had failed to prove that the alleged accident had happened because the deceased was under the influence of liquor walking on the road in a zigzag manner. On the contrary there is a positive evidence in the papers of the criminal case as well as in the evidence recorded by the Tribunal, showing that the alleged accident was the cause and consequence of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the respondent No. 1. In such premises the approach of the Tribunal holding that the alleged accident was the consequence of 25 per cent contributory negligence of the deceased being not sustainable is hereby set aside. 8. Apart from the above I have not been shown by the counsel of the insurer any legal position showing that after consuming liquor a person like the deceased could not have walked on the public road. On the contrary as per liquor licensing policy of the State of M.P. some of the liquor shopkeepers are duty-bound to provide a place nearby the shop to consume or drink the same and in normal course the person after consuming the liquor at such place under the influence of the same goes to his home by walking on foot. So in such premises also it could not be said that walking on the road under the influence of liquor itself is sufficient to hold such person to be responsible for contributory negligence. So in such premises also it could not be said that walking on the road under the influence of liquor itself is sufficient to hold such person to be responsible for contributory negligence. He could be held to be responsible only on proving the negligence act on his part in the alleged vehicular accident. In the case at hand no such circumstances have been established against the deceased. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion and also being distinguishable on facts with the present matter, the case-law Tamarajdhwaj Dahayat and Another Vs. Ramvaran Patel and Others, (2008) ACJ 2782, cited by the counsel of respondent No. 3, is not helpful to such respondent. 10. So far as the question regarding income of the deceased is concerned, it is an apparent fact on record that the impugned claim has been filed by seven persons stating themselves to be dependent on the deceased. Such facts have also been proved by the unrebutted and cogent evidence on record. In the absence of any evidence contrary to them, such evidence could not be discarded, holding that only appellant Nos. 1 and 2 being parents of the deceased are dependent and other persons are not dependent on the deceased. In any case, besides parents appellant Nos. 1 and 2, appellant Nos. 6 and 7 being minor on the date of the incident could be held to be dependent on the deceased. Accordingly, the deceased being bachelor was maintaining and looking after the family of 8 persons including himself or in any case the family of 5 persons, i.e., minor brother and sister, parents and himself. In such premises, keeping in view the large number of the family members, income of the deceased in the year 2008 could not be deemed to be less than Rs. 100 per day and accordingly by holding the income of the deceased at the rate of Rs. 100 per day, his monthly earning is held to be Rs. 100 x 30 = Rs. 3,000 and in such premises, his yearly income comes to Rs. 3,000 x 12 = Rs. 36,000. 11. Now, the court has to consider the question as to how much amount could be deducted from the aforesaid assessed annual income of the deceased regarding expenses of the deceased which he would have spent on himself had he been alive. 3,000 and in such premises, his yearly income comes to Rs. 3,000 x 12 = Rs. 36,000. 11. Now, the court has to consider the question as to how much amount could be deducted from the aforesaid assessed annual income of the deceased regarding expenses of the deceased which he would have spent on himself had he been alive. In this regard, I deem it fit to adopt the guidelines given by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , The same is read as under : (15) Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally 50 per cent 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. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50 per cent would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50 per cent as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third. 12. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third. 12. In view of aforesaid verdict of the Apex Court, if the case at hand is examined then it is apparent that besides the parents, five other persons including three brothers and two sisters, out of them two were minor, were fully dependent on the deceased and in such premises, in view of the aforesaid cited case there is no option with the court except to deduct 1/3rd sum regarding expenses of the deceased which he would have spent on himself had he been alive, thus on deducting the same, the annual dependency of the appellants on the deceased comes to Rs. 36,000-Rs. 12,000 = Rs. 24,000 per annum. 13. After working out annual dependency, the court has to decide the question as to which multiplier should be adopted in the present matter. Whether multiplier applicable to the age-group of the parents of the deceased or the multiplier relating to the age-group of the deceased should be adopted. Before proceeding further, I would like to mention here that in the case of The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Shri Laxman Iyer and Another, (2003) 8 SCC 731 , keeping in view the age of the parents of the deceased who were 47 and 43 years old and in such premises, multiplier of 10 was adopted, but on assessing the sum, no amount was deducted with respect to the expenses of the deceased which he would have spent on himself had he been alive and the total dependency was assessed on the entire income of the deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 and the entire sum was awarded by deducting the sum of contributory negligence. 3,000 and the entire sum was awarded by deducting the sum of contributory negligence. If principle of such case is adopted, then this court is bound not to deduct any sum either 1/3rd or in any other ratio on the expenses of the deceased and on carrying out the assessment in such manner, the sum of total dependency comes to higher side in comparison to carrying out the assessment of total dependency by adopting the principles of deduction laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . Therefore, in the available circumstances, 1 deem it fit to decide the case at hand by adopting the guidelines and principles laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Sarla Verma (supra). In the scheme of this cited case, no general or specific direction has been given in such case to adopt the multiplier relating to the age of the parents, even if the claim is preferred by the parents on account of the death of their bachelor/unmarried son in the vehicular accident. 14. At this stage, I deem it fit to reproduce the concerning para of the judgment of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , giving the directions to adopt the multiplier which is read as under : (21) We, therefore, hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column 4 of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is, M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years. 15. In view of the aforesaid mandate of the Apex Court, keeping in view the age of the deceased in the instant case, i.e., 33 years, multiplier of 16 is adopted. 15. In view of the aforesaid mandate of the Apex Court, keeping in view the age of the deceased in the instant case, i.e., 33 years, multiplier of 16 is adopted. On applying the same, the total dependency of the appellants-claimants on the deceased comes to Rs. 24,000 x 16 = Rs. 3,84,000. Besides this, the appellants are also entitled for Rs. 15,000 on the head of funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and loss to estate of the deceased. Accordingly, total award comes to Rs. 3,99,000. The same is awarded. 16. In view of aforesaid, by allowing this appeal in part, sum awarded by the Tribunal, i.e., Rs. 1,23,000 (rupees one lakh twenty-three thousand) is enhanced from such amount to Rs. 3,99,000 (rupees three lakh ninety-nine thousand). Besides this, the enhanced sum shall also be followed by interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing the claim petition, i.e., 23.1.2009. To the aforesaid extent, the findings of the impugned award are modified while the other findings of the same are hereby affirmed. The liability to indemnify the enhanced sum is saddled jointly and severally against the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 17. The appeal is allowed in part as indicated above. In the available facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.