JUDGMENT: This is an appeal by the original respondent no.4 – Oriental Insurance Company Limited, challenging the award dated 20.9.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati in Claim Petition No.317/2002, awarding compensation in the sum of Rs.4,47,000/- to the claimants no.1 to 3. 2. On account of motor vehicular accident occurred on 4.10.2002, involving scooter bearing no. MH -27/E-316 and truck bearing MTV - 845, Ajay Sudhakarrao Borade, son of the claimant no.1 and 2 and brother of claimant no.3 sustained fatal injuries and died. The deceased was unmarried. He had taken training of running Small Scale Industries. Thereafter he and the claimant no.3 started business in the name and style of M/s Mahalaxmi Industry and for that loan of Rs.10,00,000/- was borrowed from the Maharashtra State Finance Corporation. Since the claimant no.3 was handicapped, he was a sleeping partner, whereas the entire business was being managed by the deceased. It is alleged that he used to earn Rs.15,000/-per month. Therefore, compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-was claimed. 3. The original respondents no.1 and 2, (the driver and owner of the truck no. MTV 845) filed written statement and denied the negligence, if any, on the part of the respondent no.1. The respondent no.3 in whose name the scooter was insured did not put his appearance before the Tribunal. The respondent no.4/appellant with whom the truck was insured resisted the claim petition on the ground that at the relevant time the Truck MTV 845 was not insured with them. It was further alleged that accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased. 4. The learned Tribunal framed issues. The parties went to trial on those issues and adduced documentary as well as oral evidence. The learned Tribunal held that due to rash and negligent driving of the truck the accident occurred. It was further held that there was no breach of insurance policy. By assessing the income of the deceased @ Rs.5,000/- per month i.e. Rs.60,000/- p.a. and deducting Rs.20,000/- p.a. towards his personal expenses, the loss of dependency was calculated at Rs.40,000/- p.a. and multiplier of 11 was applied. Thus the Tribunal arrived at a figure of Rs.4,40,000/- towards loss of dependency and by adding compensation under the other heads the total compensation amount awarded comes to Rs.4,47,000/-. 5. Mr. Thus the Tribunal arrived at a figure of Rs.4,40,000/- towards loss of dependency and by adding compensation under the other heads the total compensation amount awarded comes to Rs.4,47,000/-. 5. Mr. Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the truck and respondent no.4 herein. Deceased himself was negligent while driving his scooter and met with an accident. 6. It appears from the award impugned that no witness was examined on behalf of any of the respondents. In that view of the matter. The learned Tribunal relied upon the decision in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd ..vs... Tulna devi and others [2008(3) TAC 748 SC, wherein it was held that: “No evidence led by Insurance company to prove that cause of accident was negligence and disqualification of driver to drive passenger vehicle. Absence of evidence that owner had not taken any care before vehicle was given to drive it and he was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in fulfilling condition of policy regarding use of vehicle. Liability of Insurance Company to pay compensation qua the owner can not be doubted.” 7. The learned counsel for the appellant invited my attention to the recitals in the Panchnama Exhibit 44 and contended that it was a case of head on collusion. The learned Tribunal has considered all the relevant aspects and observed in paragraph 20 of the award that both the vehicles were proceeding in the same direction. The relevant excerpt from the award is reproduced below : “The deceased was proceeding towards MIDC from his house in the same direction by which the truck was proceeding. In the spot Panchnama itself, it is mentioned that the truck was facing towards south and near the front wheel of the truck one Chetak Bajaj Scooter No. MH - 27/E-316 was lying and Ajay was also found lying on the spot. The head of Ajay was on the southern side and his legs were on the northern side. If the situation is considered, it can be inferred that Ajay was proceeding ahead of the said truck. Truck had come from the backside and gave dash thereby Ajay was dashed down on the earth, had sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot.” The aforesaid observations are supported by the evidence on record. If the situation is considered, it can be inferred that Ajay was proceeding ahead of the said truck. Truck had come from the backside and gave dash thereby Ajay was dashed down on the earth, had sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot.” The aforesaid observations are supported by the evidence on record. In that light of the matter, it is not open for the appellant to press the issue of negligence. 8. The next contention is that the learned Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses and thereafter should have arrived at the quantum of the total amount available for the dependents. The learned counsel relied on the decision in case of Smt. Sarla Verma..vs.. Delhi Transport Corporation [2009(4) ALL MR 429], in that case relying upon the decision in case of Fakeerappa ..vs.. Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory[ 2004(2) SCC 473 ], their Lordships observed that: “Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself.” “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 and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.” 9. Adverting to the facts of the present case, besides mother as dependent, the claimant no.3 who is a younger brother of the deceased having permanent disability to the extent of 45% as he had his left lower limb affected by Polio resulting in the deformity of the left foot, he was also dependent upon the income of the deceased . He was merely a sleeping partner in the business started by the deceased. In that light of the matter, the learned Tribunal deducting 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his expenses, cannot be faulted with. 10. The third ground canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant is the choice of multiplier. The learned Tribunal considered 11 as appropriate multiplier. The discussion to this effect finds place in paragraph 24 of the award. 10. The third ground canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant is the choice of multiplier. The learned Tribunal considered 11 as appropriate multiplier. The discussion to this effect finds place in paragraph 24 of the award. At the time of death the deceased was aged about 32 years. Instead of applying multiplier depending upon the age of the deceased, the learned Tribunal considered the age of the mother – dependent who was 52 years of age at the relevant time and applied multiplier of 11. Mr. Ahmed the learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal is on a higher side. The age of the dependent and the age of the deceased are the relevant factors while making choice of the multiplier. In case of P. Somanathan and others..vs.. District Insurance Officer and others reported in (2011) 3 SCC 566 , their Lordships upholding the decision of the Tribunal applying multiplier of 16 in case of death of a person aged about 33 years, and who had left behind him mother and brother as his dependents held that: “15 -In the present case, the claimants had filed for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The original claim petition had been filed by the mother and brother of the deceased and the deceased was 33 years of age when he died in the accident. For the purpose of calculating the multiplier, the High Court held that the mother was the real legal representative and others could not claim to be the legal representatives of the deceased, and accordingly applied a multiplier of 5, whereas the Tribunal had calculated compensation by considering a multiplier of 16. This Court is of the opinion that the law as has been laid correctly in Sarla Verma, a very well-considered judgment, is to be followed.” “The reasoning of the High Court is not correct in view of the ratio in Sarla Verma. Following the same the High Court should have proceeded to compute the compensation on the age of the deceased.” [emphasis supplied] In that case, the High Court in appeal, reduced the multiplier to 5 considering age of the mother who was 65 to 67 years old, whereas the tribunal had applied multiplier of 16. Their Lordships restored the decision of the Tribunal. Their Lordships restored the decision of the Tribunal. In that light of the matter, this ground raised by the learned counsel for the appellant does not survive. 11. For the aforestated reasons, there being no merit in this appeal, the appeal is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.