Judgment :- 1. All these four appeals are filed by the insurer of Maruti Van bearing Regn.No.KA-04-P1165 which was involved in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 6.3.2004 at about 4.00 am on Chittoor –Thirupathi Road on account of the rash driving of the said vehicle by its driver. 2. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the driver of the said Maruti Van bearing Regn.No.KA-04-P1165 drove the said van on the said date i.e., on 6.3.2004 at 4.00 am in rash manner, dashed against the road side petty shop and caused the accident; in the said accident, all the inmates were severely injured while two of the inmates Ramakrishna Setty and T S Kumari succumbed to the said injuries so caused. In the said circumstances, the legal representatives of the said Ramakrishna Setty and T S Kumari and the other two injured preferred MVC Nos.4238, 4239, 4240 and 4241, all of the year 2004, seeking compensation. Tribunal after considering the evidence placed on record, both oral and documentary, deemed it fit to allow all the four petitions and awarded compensation as detailed therein and also ordered that the insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. By the said award, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.9,37,000/-to the legal representatives of the deceased Ramakrishna Setty in MVC 4238/04, Rs.3,80,000/-to the legal representatives of deceased T S Kumari in MVC 4239/04, Rs.2,13,000/-to the injured Lalitha Priya in MVC.No.4240/2004 and a sum of Rs.1,41,000/-to the injured in MVC 4241/2004. 3. The appellant/insurance company challenged the said appeals on the ground that the amount of compensation so awarded in each of the cases is on the higher side and the same needs to be modified. 4. In MFA 4637/07 (MVC.No.4238/04), it is contended by the appellant/insurer that the tribunal erred in considering the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7000/-per month; failed to hold that the business which was being carried on by the deceased still continues; the family was getting income from the business and there is no loss of earnings etc. 4. In MFA 4637/07 (MVC.No.4238/04), it is contended by the appellant/insurer that the tribunal erred in considering the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7000/-per month; failed to hold that the business which was being carried on by the deceased still continues; the family was getting income from the business and there is no loss of earnings etc. In this aspect, it is to be seen that the claimants have filed documents disclosing that the deceased while alive was a Pharmacist having a medical shop, in proof of which the petitioners have filed the licence issued to run the said medical store under the name and style of ‘Srirama Medicals’ and have also adduced evidence in this regard. Though, it is contended by the claimant that the deceased was having an income of Rs.20,000/-, in the absence of acceptable evidence tribunal has deemed it fit to fix the notional income at Rs.7000/-per month; besides has also chosen to deduct 1/4 of his income towards his personal expenditure and by applying the multiplier of 12, awarded compensation for loss of income and under the other heads, totally granted Rs.9,27,000/-which award considering the age, nature and avocation of the deceased and also the right of the claimants as wife and children to claim compensation, is just and reasonable. The same does not call for interference. 5. It is the case of the claimants in MVC 4239/07 that their mother T S Kumari was running the provision store and earning Rs.5000/-per month and the claimants have also got marked the rent receipt, registered certificate, two Partnership Deeds and Form-3 which are marked as Exs.P.4 to P.8 and she was also one of the partners of the provision store viz., T S Sanjeevamurthy & Sons. The Tribunal though observed that inspite of death of Kumari – one of the partners, the partnership shall continue to function and the claimants have not suffered any financial loss from the income of the said provision store, by considering her notional income as Rs.4000/-per month; by deducting 1/3 of the amount towards her personal expenses and considering the age of the victim as mentioned in the post mortem report as 52 years, applying the multiplier of 11, has deemed it fit to award Rs.3,52,000/-towards loss of dependency. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company contended that the loss of dependency calculated is on the higher side. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company contended that the loss of dependency calculated is on the higher side. He relied upon the decision reported in A MANAVALAGAN vs A.KRISHNAMURTHY AND OTEHRS reported in 2005 ACJ 992 , wherein it is observed that the claimants are non-dependent brother and sisters claiming on behalf of the estate, the savings can be taken as 15% of the income and relying upon the said decision, he further contended as the claimants are the major sons, loss of estate as calculated in the above cited judgment may be adopted in the case on hand. 7. In the said decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, a clear distinction is made with regard to the calculation of the loss occasioned to the persons who are not dependent upon the deceased, inasmuch as, in Pargraph-19 (iii) it is observed as hereunder: “(iii) Where the claim by the legal representatives of the deceased who were not dependent on the deceased, then the basis for award of compensation is the loss to the estate, that is the loss of savings by the deceased. A conventional sum for loss of expectation of life is added.” Similarly, in the said citation at Paragraph 20(v) it is further observed as hereunder: “xxx xxx xxx Though the quantum of savings will vary from person to person, there is a need to standardize the quantum of savings for determining the loss to estate (where the claimants are not dependants) in the absence of specific evidence to the contrary. The quantum of savings can be taken as one-third of the income of the deceased where the spouses are having a common establishment and one-fourth where the spouses are having independent establishments. The above will apply where the family consists of non-dependent spouse/children/parents. Where the claimants are non-dependent brothers/sisters claiming on behalf of the estate, the savings can be taken as 15 per cent of the income. The above percentages are, of course, subject to any specific evidence to the contrary led by the claimants.” 8. Admittedly, the claimants in MVC 4239/04 (MFA 4638/07) are all three major sons having common establishment, but, who were not depending upon the income of their mother to any extent. The above percentages are, of course, subject to any specific evidence to the contrary led by the claimants.” 8. Admittedly, the claimants in MVC 4239/04 (MFA 4638/07) are all three major sons having common establishment, but, who were not depending upon the income of their mother to any extent. In the reported decision the deceased lady who was working as a lecturer died living behind only her husband and they had no children, her husband was also employed and he was not dependent upon the income of the wife. In the circumstances, the compensation was awarded under the heads loss of estate (loss of savings), loss of expectation of life, loss of consortium, expenses incurred towards funeral and transportation of dead body and treatment etc. Thus, even in this case, the claimants who were not depending upon the income of their mother to any extent are entitled to be compensated in similar manner. 9. On perusal of the partnership deed marked as Ex.P.7, it is seen that the deceased Kumari was also entitled for the profit at 25% on par with other 3 partners. The claimants have also chosen to file statement of monthly turnover/value of tax paid in advance with regard to the said firm which are marked as Ex.P.8. On perusal of the same, it is seen that it is filed in the year preceding to the death of the victim. The taxable turnover per month is ranging from Rs.7,02,202.672 to Rs.13,31,035.83. The claimants have also chosen to file the auditor’s report with regard to profit and loss account, balance sheet etc; Form 3, Statement furnished under Section 44 AB of the Income Tax Act filed in the year 2001, 2003 and 2004 which are marked as Ex.P.9 series and Ex.P.10. 10. Considering the contents of the aforesaid documents which discloses the income as detailed therein, though the business is continued and no loss in business as such has occasioned, the income of the deceased while alive can be conventionally assessed at Rs.6000/-per month. Considering the age and nature of her involvement in the business etc., it is appropriate that 2/3 of the said income can be deducted for living and personal expenses and thus, the savings of the deceased can be assessed at Rs.2000/-per month. 11. Considering the age and nature of her involvement in the business etc., it is appropriate that 2/3 of the said income can be deducted for living and personal expenses and thus, the savings of the deceased can be assessed at Rs.2000/-per month. 11. Thus, as the deceased was aged 52 years, by applying the multiplier at 11, loss of estate would be Rs.2,64,000/-(Rs.2000x12x11)(loss of savings). Apart from the said amount, claimants are also entitled to be compensated under other conventional heads as hereunder: (1) Loss of Estate (Loss of savings) Rs.2,64,000/- (2) Loss of Love and Affection Rs.25,000/- (3) Transportation of dead body and Funeral expensesRs.15,000/- TOTAL Rs.3,04,000/- Thus, the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.3,04,000/-. 12. The claimant in MVC 4210/2001 i.e., MFA4639/07 being minor and represented by her mother – natural guardian has contended that she suffered head injury, fracture of right temporal bone, fracture of right frontal bone, fracture shaft of left femur, fracture shaft of right tibia etc. She was treated in the hospital as an inpatient from 7.3.2004 upto 20.03.2004. Considering the nature of injuries suffered, the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh towards pain and agony, considering the medical bills filed has awarded medical expenses of Rs.45,000/-, Rs.8000/-towards conveyance and nourishment and also considering the medical evidence led in, percentage of disability which the claimant has to suffer throughout her life, has deemed it fit to award Rs.60,000/-towards loss of amenities and thus, in all the tribunal awarded Rs.2,13,000/-as against the claim of Rs.10.00 lakhs, which amount considering the evidence on record is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 13. Claimant in MVC 4641/04 filed the said petition seeking compensation contending that she suffered fracture of right femur, left femur. She was treated in Manipal Northside Hospital from 7.3.2004 to 20.03.2004. The tribunal considering the nature of injuries and the period of treatment, has deemed it fit to award Rs.60,000/-towards pain and suffering, Rs.33,000/-towards medical expenses, Rs.8000/-towards conveyance & nourishment charges and Rs.40,000/-towards loss of amenities which award considering the evidence placed on record by the claimants is just and proper and the same does not call for any interference. Thus, MFA 4637/07, MFA 4639/07 and MFA 4640/07 are liable to be dismissed while MFA 4638/07 is entitled to be modified. Hence, the following: ORDER MFA.No.4637/07, 4639/07 and 4640/07 are hereby dismissed. Thus, MFA 4637/07, MFA 4639/07 and MFA 4640/07 are liable to be dismissed while MFA 4638/07 is entitled to be modified. Hence, the following: ORDER MFA.No.4637/07, 4639/07 and 4640/07 are hereby dismissed. MFA.No.4638/07 is disposed of awarding compensation of Rs.3,04,000/-with interest @ 6% P.A. in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein against the appellant and respondent No.4 whose liability is joint and several. However, the appellant-Insurance Company shall indemnify the 4th respondent – owner of the vehicle. The amount so awarded shall be apportioned in equal proportions to respondent Nos.1 to 3 with proportionate interest.