Judgment This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.1.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati, in M.A.C.P. No.100/2009, granting compensation of Rs.6,23,900/-to the respondents no.2 to 7 on account of death of one Faganu caused in a motor vehicular accident involving auto-rickshaw owned by respondent no.1 and insured with the appellant. 2] The appellant/ insurance company had set up a defence that the Driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid driving licence. The learned Tribunal after assessing the evidence found that the driver–cum–owner – respondent no.1 herein had a driving licence, but it was not renewed and thus was not valid on the date when the accident occurred. He therefore accepted the defence that there was breach of term of insurance policy, however, directed the appellant – insurance company to satisfy the award at the first instance and then to recover it from the respondent on.1. 3] Mr. Paunikar, raised two points, firstly it is contended that the learned Tribunal was not justified in deducting only one-fifth of the amount from the amount of income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses. Second ground canvassed is that once breach of term of insurance policy is proved, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to direct the insurer to satisfy the award and then to recover it from the original owner. 4] Well settled rule is that deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses of the deceased is one-third. In case of U.P. SRTC ..vs. Trilok Chandra (1996)4 SCC 362 , their Lordships observed that if the number of dependents in the family of the deceased was large, in the absence of specific evidence in regard to contribution to the family, the court may adopt the unit method for arriving at the contribution of the deceased to his family. By this method, two units are allotted to each adult and one unit is allotted to each minor and total number of units are determined. Then the income is divided by the total number of units. The quotient is multiplied by two to arrive at the personal living expenses of the deceased. 5] If the deduction has to be considered in terms of the formula laid down in case of Trilok Chandra (supra) the loss of dependency roughly comes to Rs.3000/-. Whereas the learned Tribunal assessed it to Rs.3200/-per annum. The quotient is multiplied by two to arrive at the personal living expenses of the deceased. 5] If the deduction has to be considered in terms of the formula laid down in case of Trilok Chandra (supra) the loss of dependency roughly comes to Rs.3000/-. Whereas the learned Tribunal assessed it to Rs.3200/-per annum. Thus there is a marginal or rather insignificant variation which needs to be ignored. Thus in the facts and circumstances of the case there appears no need to interfere with the amount of compensation awarded. This is also for the reason that the deceased was working as Meson. It was the stand of the claimant that he was earning Rs.7000/-per month. By way of guess work the learned Tribunal considered income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/-which obviously appears to be on lower side. 6] The other point canvassed by learned counsel for the appellant is that in view of the breach of term of insurance policy, the appellant cannot be held liable to satisfy the award. The learned Tribunal relying upon the decision in case of United Insurance Co.Ltd..vs.. Sindhubai 2010(3) reported in 2010(3) Mh.L.J. 886 held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly when the breach of policy was for the reason that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid driving licence on the date when the accident occurred, directed, and rightly so, the appellant insurer to satisfy the award at the first instance and then to recover it from the original owner of the vehicle. This issue is no longer res-intigra in view of the subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court in case of Kusum Lata and others ..vs.. Satbir and others reported in 2011 ACJ 926 and also Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd...vs.. Chandra Devi and others reported in 2 012 ACJ 567. 7] For the aforestated reasons, there is no merit in this appeal, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.