JUDGMENT Brojendra Prasad Katakey, J. 1. The Insurance Company has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, the Act) challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl in MACT Case No. 15 of 2008 vide judgment and award dated 22nd February, 2010 (23rd February, 2010), whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs. 4,24,500/- 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, which was driven by the deceased. 2. The claimant/Respondent No. 1 herein filed an application under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- for the death of her son, in the aforesaid motor accident, who was about 20 (twenty) years old and a bachelor. The said application was registered and numbered as MAC Case No. 15/2008. While the Appellant/Insurance Company, on receipt of the summons entered appearance and filed the written statement, the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who are the owners of the truck and the motor cycle, respectively, however, did not enter appearance and contest the said proceeding, despite service of notice, for which, the said proceeding before the learned Tribunal proceeded ex-parte against them. 3. The claimant/Respondent No. 1, in support of her claim, examined 3 (three) witnesses, namely the claimant herself as C.W. 1, the employer of the deceased, namely R. Sawivela as C.W. 2 and the Investigating Officer, Shri T. Thuamchungnunga as C.W. 3. The claimant has also proved a number of documents including the contract of insurance between the Appellant/Insurance Company and the Respondent No. 2, who is the owner of the offending vehicle (Truck). No witness, however, has been examined by the Appellant/Insurance Company. 4. The learned Tribunal upon appreciation of the evidences on record, vide judgment dated 22nd February, 2010 (23rd February, 2010) awarded the compensation of Rs. No witness, however, has been examined by the Appellant/Insurance Company. 4. The learned Tribunal upon appreciation of the evidences on record, vide judgment dated 22nd February, 2010 (23rd February, 2010) awarded the compensation of Rs. 4,24,500/-, 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 said award, in view of the contract of insurance between the owner of the offending vehicle and the Appellant/Insurance Company. Hence, the present appeal. 5. I have heard Mrs. Helen Dawngliani, learned Counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company and Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1. None appears for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, despite service of notice and hence vide order dated 23rd March, 2011, it was directed that the appeal would be decided in their absence. 6. Mrs. Dawngliani, learned Counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company referring to the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, the deposition of C.W. 1, the claimant herself, and also the deposition of the employer of the deceased, C.W. 2, has submitted that though C.W. 1 and C.W. 2 in their examination-in-chief had claimed that the deceased monthly income was Rs. 3,500/-, C.W. 2, during his cross-examination has admitted that the deceased was paid the wages @ Rs. 120/- per day and he was engaged on an average 25 days in a month and as such, according to the learned Counsel, the learned Tribunal ought to have taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- instead of Rs. 3,500/-. It is also the contention of the learned Counsel that C.W. 1, in her deposition has stated in clear terms that the deceased was a bachelor and the deceased father is contributing Rs. 7,000/- to the family out of his income from salary, being the Government servant. It has also been submitted that it is not the case of the claimant, C.W. 1, that 2 (two) minor brother and sister of the deceased was dependent on the income of the deceased. 7,000/- to the family out of his income from salary, being the Government servant. It has also been submitted that it is not the case of the claimant, C.W. 1, that 2 (two) minor brother and sister of the deceased was dependent on the income of the deceased. The learned Counsel, therefore, submits that the learned Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% from the monthly income of the deceased, towards his personal and living expenses, in ascertaining the loss of dependency by following the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and other vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009)6 SCC 121 . The learned Counsel submitted that the learned Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd from the monthly income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses, by wrongly applying the decision of the Apex Court in Fakeerappa and another vs. Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory and other reported in (2004)2 SCC 473 , wherein the Apex Court, keeping in view the special features of that case, has allowed deduction of 1/3rd, even though generally 50% is required to be deducted. The learned Counsel, therefore, submits that the award passed by the learned Tribunal may suitably be reduced. 7. Mr. Lianhrima, learned Counsel appearing for the claimant/Respondent No. 1, on the other hand, supporting the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal has contended that taking the totality of the evidences as adduced by the claimant, the learned Tribunal has rightly taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 3,500/-. It has also been submitted that since the deceased left behind, apart from his mother, i.e. claimant, 2 (two) other minor brother and sister, the learned Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd from the monthly income of the deceased, towards his personal and living expenses, for ascertaining the loss of dependency. The learned Counsel, therefore, submits that the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal requires no interference in appeal. 8. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the evidences on record, both oral and documentary. I have also perused the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, which is under challenge in the present appeal. 9. 8. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the evidences on record, both oral and documentary. I have also perused the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, which is under challenge in the present appeal. 9. The present appeal is in a very narrow campus, since the factum of accident, the death of the claimant's son in such accident, the age of the claimant as well as of the deceased, the finding of the learned Tribunal that the vehicle bearing registration No. MZ-01/C-9167 (Truck) was the offending vehicle as well as the existence of the contract of insurance between the Appellant/Insurance Company and the owner of the Truck, Respondent No. 2, are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was a bachelor and his both parents are living, apart from 2 (two) minor brother and sister. 10. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the parties relating to the finding of the learned Tribunal about the monthly income of the deceased and deduction of 1/3rd from the monthly income towards his personal and living expenses, I have perused the evidences, as adduced by the claimant/Respondent No. 1. It appears from the deposition of C.W. 1 (claimant herself) that though she claimed that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 3,500/-, the employer of the deceased, who has been examined as C.W. 2 and who issued the salary certificate being Exhibit-C/15, during his cross-examination, has stated that the salary of Rs. 3,500/- as certified in the said document was the approximation of the monthly wages. He has further stated in his evidence that the deceased was paid Rs. 120/- per day and he was at an average engaged for 25 days in a month. 11. The employer of the deceased (C.W. 2) having been examined, his evidence would be more relevant for the purpose of ascertaining the monthly income of the deceased, than the evidence of the claimant herself (C.W. 1). As discussed above, C.W. 2 has admitted that the deceased was paid Rs. 120/- per day and in an average he was engaged for 25 days in a month. That being the position, the monthly income of the deceased should be taken as Rs. 3,000/-. The learned Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. As discussed above, C.W. 2 has admitted that the deceased was paid Rs. 120/- per day and in an average he was engaged for 25 days in a month. That being the position, the monthly income of the deceased should be taken as Rs. 3,000/-. The learned Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 3,500/- as per evidence of his employer, without, however, discussing the evidence of the employer. 12. The learned Tribunal, therefore, was not justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 3,500/-, which ought to have been taken as Rs. 3,000/- per month. 13. It is also evident from the deposition of the claimant herself (C.W.1) that the deceased left behind both his parents, apart from 2 (two) minor brother and sister. The father of the deceased is a Government servant and he contributes Rs. 7,000/- per month to the family out of the salary received by him. The claimant (C.W.1) also has not stated in her evidence that the minor brother and sister of the deceased was solely dependant on the income of the deceased. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. 15. 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. 16. The Apex Court in Sarla Verma (supra) has opined 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 and there is always the possibility of contributing a lesser amount to the family after the marriage. It has also been held 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. It has also been opined that there may be exception to the said position, where the deceased has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers and in that case his personal and living expenses may be restricted to 1/3rd and contribution to the family can be taken as 2/3rd. 17. The amount to be deducted from the income of the deceased, who was a bachelor, towards the personal and living expenses, may vary from case to case. However, generally in case of a bachelor, 50% from the income of the deceased is to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses, for the purpose of calculating the loss of dependency. There can always be an exception to such general rule, which would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 18. In the case in hand, as discussed above, the deceased left behind both the parents and 2 (two) minor non earning brother and sister. The father of the deceased is a Government servant and contributed Rs. 7,000/- to the family. It is also not the case of the claimant (C.W.1) that the 2 (two) minor brother and sister of the deceased were dependant on the income of the deceased. The father of the deceased is a Government servant and contributed Rs. 7,000/- to the family. It is also not the case of the claimant (C.W.1) that the 2 (two) minor brother and sister of the deceased were dependant on the income of the deceased. That being the position, this case cannot be an exception to the general rule of deduction of 50% from the monthly income of the deceased, who was a bachelor, towards his personal and living expenses, for the purpose of ascertaining the loss of dependency. 19. In view of the above, the claimant/Respondent No. 1 would be entitled to Rs. 2,70,000/- towards the loss of dependency (50% of Rs. 3,000/- X 12 X the appropriate multiplier, i.e. 15). 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/Respondent No. 1 is thus entitle to a sum of Rs. 2,80,000/-, which amount shall carry simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the application till the date of realization. There being no dispute relating to the contract of insurance between the Appellant/Insurance Company and the Respondent No. 2, who is the owner of the offending vehicle (Truck), the Appellant/Insurance Company is directed to satisfy the award by depositing the amount before the learned Tribunal within a period of 2 (two) months from today, after deducting the amount, if any, already paid. 20. The judgment and award dated 22nd February, 2010 (23rd February, 2010) passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, accordingly, stands modified. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Appeal allowed.