JUDGMENT B.P. Katakey, J. 1. This appeal, by the Insurance Company is directed against the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl in MAC Case No. 14/2008 vide judgment and award dated 23rd February, 2010, whereby and MAC Appeal No. 32/2010 Page 1 of 8 whereunder an amount of Rs.3,88,500/- has been awarded as compensation for the death of the claimant/Respondent No. 1's son in a motor accident occurred on 9th January, 2008 at about 7-40 PM at Zodin Square in front of Mahatma Gandhi's statue, involving the motor vehicle bearing registration No. MZ-01/C-9167 (truck) belonging to the present Respondent No. 2 and the motor vehicle bearing registration No. MZ-04/2275 (motor cycle) belonging to the Respondent No. 3, in respect of which the deceased was the pillion rider. 2. The Respondent No. 1 herein filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, "the Act") claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of her son, who was about 18 (eighteen) years of age at the time of the accident. The said application was registered and numbered as MAC Case No. 14/2008. The Appellant/Insurance Company, on receipt of the summons entered appearance and filed the written statement objecting the prayer for grant of compensation. The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 though were served, however, did not enter appearance and contest the said proceeding and as such, the said proceeding proceeded ex-parte against them. The claimant No. 1, in support of her claim, examined herself and 2 (two) other witnesses and proved a number of documents including the contract of insurance between the Appellant/Insurance Company and the owner of the offending vehicle, namely, truck. Though the Insurance Company has filed the written statement, no witness, however, has been examined. 3. The learned Tribunal upon appreciation of the evidences on record, passed the aforesaid judgment dated 23rd February, 2010 awarding a sum of Rs.3,88,500/- as compensation, with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realization and directing the Appellant/Insurance Company to satisfy the award, in view of the contract of insurance between the Appellant and the owner of the truck, the Respondent No. 2. Hence, the present appeal. 4. I have heard Mrs. Helen Dawngliani, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 5. Hence, the present appeal. 4. I have heard Mrs. Helen Dawngliani, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 5. Since the Appellant/Insurance Company in the present appeal has challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, without challenging the contract of insurance, the appeal is taken up for hearing and disposal today itself, without issuing notice on the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and as agreed to by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant as well as the Respondent No. 1/claimant. 6. Mrs. Dawngliani, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant/Insurance Company referring to the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Tribunal and also the deposition of the claimant herself has submitted that since the claimant has admitted in her deposition that she was not solely dependant on the income of the deceased, who used to earn Rs.3,000/- per month, the father of the deceased being also a earning member, being the Government servant and it is also not being the case of the claimant/Respondent No. 1 that the younger brother and sisters were dependant on his income, the learned Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% from the income of the deceased, towards his personal and living expenses while ascertaining the loss of dependency. The learned Counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd from the income of the deceased to ascertain the loss of dependency by wrongly applying the decision of the Apex Court in Fakeerappa and Anr. v. Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory and Ors. reported in (2004) 2 SCC 473 , as in that case 1/3rd from the income of the deceased was deducted, keeping in view the special features involved therein, though the general rule is for deduction of 50% from the income of the deceased, if he is a bachelor. The learned Counsel in support her contention has also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smti.) and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 . The learned Counsel, therefore, submits that the amount of compensation, as awarded by the learned Tribunal may suitably be reduced. 7. Mr. The learned Counsel in support her contention has also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smti.) and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 . The learned Counsel, therefore, submits that the amount of compensation, as awarded by the learned Tribunal may suitably be reduced. 7. Mr. Lianhrima, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1, on the other hand, supporting the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal has contended that keeping in view the evidence of the claimant to the effect that the deceased, apart from the claimant, also left behind (3) minor brother and sisters, has rightly applied the decision of the Apex Court in Fakeerappa (supra) and deducted 1/3rd from the income of the deceased, towards personal and living expenses, for ascertaining the loss of dependency. The learned Counsel, therefore, submits that the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal needs no interference. 8. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the judgment and award dated 23rd February, 2010 passed by the learned Tribunal. I have also perused the deposition of witnesses examined by the claimant/Respondent No. 1 in support of her claim, as produced by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 9. In the case in hand, the factum of accident, the death of the claimant's son in such accident, the age of the deceased, the income of the deceased and also the contract of insurance between the Appellant/Insurance Company and the owner of the offending vehicle, i.e. the truck bearing registration No. MZ-01/C-9167, are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was a bachelor. 10. The claimant/Respondent No. 1 in her deposition has stated that the deceased, who was 18 (eighteen) years old, used to earn Rs.3,000/- per month, which was handed over to her and she was dependant on the income of the deceased. The claimant has not claimed that 3 (three) younger brother and sisters of the deceased were also dependant on the deceased income. The claimant, during cross-examination, has admitted that her husband, who is the father of the deceased, is also earning Rs.7,000/- per month as salary received from the Government, which was also handed over to her for running the family. The claimant, during cross-examination, has admitted that her husband, who is the father of the deceased, is also earning Rs.7,000/- per month as salary received from the Government, which was also handed over to her for running the family. The claimant also in her evidence has stated that she rented out a part of her two-storied building from where she earned Rs.1,000/- per month. 11. It is, therefore, evident from the evidence of the claimant herself that neither she nor the younger brother and sisters of the deceased were solely dependant on the income of the deceased, who was a bachelor, as the father of the deceased, who is a Government employee, also earn Rs.7,000/- per month. 12. The Apex Court in Fakeerappa (supra) while considering the appropriateness of deduction of 50% from the earning of the deceased, who is a bachelor towards the personal and living expenses, has in paragraph 7 opined as follows: What would be the percentage of deduction for personal expenditure cannot be governed by any rigid rule or formula of universal application. It would depend upon circumstances of each case. The deceased undisputedly was a bachelor. Stand of the insurer is that after marriage, the contribution to the parents would have been lesser and, therefore, taking an overall view the Tribunal and the High Court were justified in fixing the deduction. The Apex Court in the said case, however, keeping in view the special features has allowed deduction of 1/3rd from the income of the deceased towards the personal and living expenses for ascertaining the loss of dependency. 13. The learned Tribunal without considering the said aspect has deducted 1/3rd towards the personal and living expenses by observing that the Apex Court in Fakeerappa (supra) has observed that it would be appropriate to restrict the deduction of personal expenses to 1/3rd of the monthly income of the deceased. 14. In Sarla Verma (supra), it has been opined by the Apex Court that normally 50% is to be deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, if he is a bachelor, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. 14. In Sarla Verma (supra), it has been opined by the Apex Court that normally 50% is to be deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, if he is a bachelor, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. It has also been opined that even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be the dependent and 50% would be treated as personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% would be treated as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependant 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 1/3rd and contribution to the family can be taken as 2/3rd. 15. What would be the deduction towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, is a matter of fact and depends upon the facts of each case. However, as general rule in case of a bachelor, 50% from the income of the deceased is to be deducted towards the personal and living expenses, to ascertain the loss of dependency. There, however, can always be exception to such general rule, which would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 16. As noticed above, the claimant herself admitted during her cross-examination that the father of the deceased, who is living, is a Government servant and contributed Rs.7,000/- to the family. As discussed above, the claimant was not solely dependant on the income of the deceased. It is also not the case of the claimant that the younger brother and sisters of the deceased were also dependent on MAC Appeal No. 32/2010 Page 7 of 8 his income. That being the position, the normal rule of deduction of 50% from the income of the deceased, who is a bachelor, towards his personal and living expenses, for the purpose of ascertaining the loss of dependency has to be applied. 17. In view of the above, the claimant/Respondent No. 1 would be entitled to Rs.2,88,000/- towards the loss of dependency (50% of Rs.3,000/- X 12 X the appropriate multiplier, i.e. 16). 17. In view of the above, the claimant/Respondent No. 1 would be entitled to Rs.2,88,000/- towards the loss of dependency (50% of Rs.3,000/- X 12 X the appropriate multiplier, i.e. 16). The claimant would also be entitled to a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards the loss of estate and another sum of Rs.5,000/- towards the funeral expenses. The claimant is thus entitle to a sum of Rs.2,98,000/- with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the application till the date of realization, as awarded by the learned Tribunal. Since there is no dispute relating to the contract of insurance between the Appellant/Insurance Company and the owner of the offending vehicle (truck), the Appellant/Insurance Company shall satisfy the said award by depositing the amount before the learned Tribunal within a period of 2 (two) months from today by deducting the amount, if any, already paid. 18. The judgment and award dated 23rd February, 2010 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, accordingly, stands modified. The appeal is partly allowed. No costs.