Subhasis Talapatra, J.—Heard Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., as well as Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. This matter has been taken up for disposal as agreed to by learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and as there is no dispute that the offending vehicle is covered by the policy of the appellant. 2. The findings as returned by the Tribunal as regards the accident that occurred on 23.3.2010 at Atharamura Range near 35 miles on Assam-Agartala Road (NH 44), the involvement of the vehicle bearing registration No. TR 02-C 0319 (Tata Safari) and its insurance covered by the appellant are not in dispute by either of the parties and as such those findings stand affirmed. 3. The solitary question as projected in this appeal is as regards assessment of compensation. Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, seriously criticised the mode of assessing the compensation as adopted by the Tribunal. Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel, further submitted that the income as assessed has been considered without any proof. According to Mr. Majumder, learned counsel, the salary certificate, Exh. 6, shows the monthly salary of deceased at Rs. 23,667 whereas the Tribunal has assessed his monthly income at Rs. 35,500. He further contended that the deduction as made by the Tribunal is also not tenable in view of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , where the Apex Court held 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 percent is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parents and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. 4. Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, continued to criticise the impugned judgment and award contending that Tribunal has committed a serious error considering the multiplier 11' on the basis of the age of the mother, claimant. However, there is no dispute that the age of the mother was about 55 years at the time of accident. 4. Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, continued to criticise the impugned judgment and award contending that Tribunal has committed a serious error considering the multiplier 11' on the basis of the age of the mother, claimant. However, there is no dispute that the age of the mother was about 55 years at the time of accident. 5. From the opposite side, Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, submitted that para 31 of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , propounds no inflexible rule for deduction to the extent of 50 percent where the deceased was bachelor, rather it has been held that if the evidence to the contrary is found the deduction can be made lesser than what has been described as the normal rule. He also relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, , where it has been held that: (15) It is also not possible to approve the view taken by the Tribunal which has been reiterated by the High Court albeit without assigning reasons that the deceased would have spent 1/3rd of his total earnings, i.e., Rs. 500 for personal expenses. It seems that the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal and the learned single Judge of the High Court were totally oblivious of the hard realities of the life. It will be impossible for a person whose monthly income is Rs. 1,500 to spend 1/3rd on himself leaving 2/3rd for the family consisting of five persons. Ordinarily, such a person would, at best, spend 1/10th of his income on himself or use that amount as personal expenses and leave the rest for his family. 6. On scrutiny of the records and on appreciation of the rival contentions, this court finds that the Tribunal did not commit any mistake by selecting the multiplier 11' in terms of the reckoner provided in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , inasmuch as the person whose age is in the range of 50-55 years, the appropriate multiplier for him would be 11'. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , inasmuch as the person whose age is in the range of 50-55 years, the appropriate multiplier for him would be 11'. So far as the question of assessing the income of the deceased, who was a Medical Officer working in the Tripura Medical Service, is concerned, the Tribunal has correctly added 50 percent of the admitted monthly salary as the future prospect and arrived at a sum of Rs. 35,500 for purpose of determining the due compensation. The question of deduction is required to be re-appreciated. No evidence has been brought on record to demonstrate that the siblings were dependent on the deceased. Rather it appears that the father of the deceased is a pensioner. As such the siblings cannot be held to be dependent on the deceased. 7. Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik, learned counsel, has pointed out that in Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, , deduction was made by the Tribunal mechanically. The Supreme Court on considering the number of dependants held that there cannot be any inflexible rule for deduction. Rather, if the evidence to the contrary is found the deduction can be made to a lesser extent. But that observation of Santosh Devi (supra) has no relevance in the context of this case as that was not a case of a bachelor who died in an accident arising from use of the motor vehicle. It emerges eminently that the Tribunal has committed a serious error by deducting 75th from the income of the deceased. Thus the compensation is required to be redrawn. 8. The monthly income of the deceased shall remain unaltered at Rs. 35,500. Thus the annual income comes at (Rs. 35,500 x 12) = Rs. 4,26,000. From that said amount 50 percent has to be deducted as the personal expenses in terms of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, . Thus, the amount reduces to Rs. 2,13,000. The loss of dependency is therefore assessed at Rs. 23,43,000. A sum of Rs. 10,000 for funeral expenses, a sum of Rs. 10,000 for pain and suffering and another sum of Rs. 5,000 for transportation are to be added therewith. The total compensation is thus to be at Rs. 23,68,000 (rupees twenty-three lakh sixty-eight thousand). 2,13,000. The loss of dependency is therefore assessed at Rs. 23,43,000. A sum of Rs. 10,000 for funeral expenses, a sum of Rs. 10,000 for pain and suffering and another sum of Rs. 5,000 for transportation are to be added therewith. The total compensation is thus to be at Rs. 23,68,000 (rupees twenty-three lakh sixty-eight thousand). It shall carry interest at the rate of 7 percent per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the payment is made. It appears from the records that the appellant has already deposited Rs. 20,00,000 (rupees twenty lakh) in this Registry. The claimant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are at liberty to receive the said amount on proper identification. The remainder of awarded amount shall be paid by appellant within two months from today in the Tribunal. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall be entitled to receive the said compensation in equal share from the Tribunal. Accordingly this appeal is partly allowed. Send down the L.C.Rs. forthwith.