1. Heard Mr. Zochhuana, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. S.N. Meitei, learned counsel representing the respondent No. 1 claimant/respondent. I have also heard Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 (driver of the vehicle). 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 2.8.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lunglei District in MACT Case No. 5/2011. By the said impugned judgment and award, the learned Presiding Officer, MACT has awarded the claimant/respondent No. 1, the following. “DECREE & ORDER Accordingly, it is decreed and ordered that the claimant Devi Chhetri S/o P.B. Chhetri, Lunglawn, Lunglei, is entitled compensation totaling Rs. 8,17,500 only and O.P, No. 1 United India Insurance Co. Ltd, Canteen Square, Aizawl Branch is directed to pay to the said claimant the said amount within one month from the date this order is issued, failing which O.P. No. 1 shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum to the claimant until the awarded amount is realized. However, the OP No. 1 is allowed to deduct Rs. 5,000 which was paid as interim award.” 3. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the Insurance Company as the appellant has preferred this appeal on the following grounds : “(a) For that the learned Tribunal is erred in law and in facts in passing the. impugned judgment and award. (b) For that the instant claim petition has been filed under section 166 of the MV Act and at the same time the learned Tribunal vide its judgment and Order dated 24.2.12 was pleased to pass an interim award of Rs. 50,000 in favour of the respondent No. 1 and the same has been paid up in full by the appellant and that further the deceased in respect of whose death the instant claim petition has been filed was a bachelor. In such a case 50% of the income of the deceased has to be deducted towards personal and miscellaneous expenses. However, the same has not been done so in the instant case. (c) For that the interim award of Rs. 50,000 has not been deducted from the final award. (d) For that the cause of death of the deceased was not due to motor vehicular accident but to the placing of the said electric wire which can be easily touched by moving vehicle. (c) For that the interim award of Rs. 50,000 has not been deducted from the final award. (d) For that the cause of death of the deceased was not due to motor vehicular accident but to the placing of the said electric wire which can be easily touched by moving vehicle. In such a case the said accident took place due to the negligence of Government of Mizoram particularly Power and Electricity Deptt. In such a case it is the Government of Mizoram not the appellant, is liable to satisfy the said award even if the respondent No. 1 is held entitle to get compensation and at the same time the said claim petition was also liable to be dismissed due to non-joined of necessary parties, i.e., Government of Mizoram, power and Electricity Deptt. (e) For that as stated above the instant claim petition has been filed under section 166 of the MV Act which is based on the principle of fault liability. In such a case the respondent No. 1 has to prove that the cause of the said accident was due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the accident vehicle. However, in the instant case even the police report submitted, relied and exhibited by the respondent No. 1 does not indicate as to how the inquiry officer came to the conclusion that there was rash and negligent deriving on the part of the accident vehicle. This clearly indicated that there is no rash and negligent during on the part of the driver of the accident vehicle. In such a case, the respondent No. 1 is entitle only for the interim award already paid to him. (d) For that the learned Tribunal multiplier applicable to the deceased. However, as per the decision of the hon’ble Apex Court the multiplier applicable either to the deceased or of the claimant whichever is lower should be adopted. (g) For that the appellant also disputes the credibility of the alleged income certificate of the deceased and of the testimony of the issuing authority. In fact, in such a small town like Lunglei, the deceased who had allegedly passed only Class-XII, working as Warden only for Nigh and Morning shift was given such a huge sum of Rs. 6,000 per months as a salary is doubtful. In fact, in such a small town like Lunglei, the deceased who had allegedly passed only Class-XII, working as Warden only for Nigh and Morning shift was given such a huge sum of Rs. 6,000 per months as a salary is doubtful. Further, even the educational certificate of the deceased to show that he had pass Class-XII, was also not exhibited. (h) For that the Ld. Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by the Appellant Insurance Company nor test the credibility’s of the Claimant evidences by the evidence adduced at the time of cross-examination of the claimant and her witnesses. (i) For that the facts and circumstances and the grounds of this Appeal as set forth above call for the interference of this hon’ble court.” 4. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned judgment and award is not sustainable in law because of non-joinder of necessary parties and also because of non-deduction of 50% of the income of the deceased, who was a bachelor. According to him, the accident having occurred due to electrocution, which is deceased suffered, the Power Department of the Government of Mizoram was liable to pay compensation and accordingly was the necessary party in the MACT proceeding. Referring to the decision of the Apex Court reported in Syed Basheer Ahamed v. Mohammed Jameel, (2009) 2 SCC 225 , he further submits that irrespective of the said position, it was incumbent on the part of the MACT while making the award to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased as he was unmarried. 5. Opposing the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Meitei, learned counsel representing the respondent No. 1, however, submits that the accident having occurred resulting the death of the deceased, the learned MACT has rightly passed the impugned judgment and award. Referring to the provisions of sections 165 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, he submits that since the death of the deceased was because of the accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle in question, there is no escape from the liability of the Insurance Company to pay the compensation awarded by the MACT. Learned counsel representing the respondent No. 3 submits that since the vehicle in question was insured with the Insurance Company, the liability would fall on the said company. 6. Learned counsel representing the respondent No. 3 submits that since the vehicle in question was insured with the Insurance Company, the liability would fall on the said company. 6. I have given my anxious considerations to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have also considered the entire materials on record. 7. There is no dispute that the vehicle in question driven by the respondent No. 3 had dashed the particular electric wire and the same got cutoff and fell on the deceased causing serous injuries. Although, he was taken to the MI room of 4th Assam Rifles, but he succumbed to his injuries. 8. As recorded in the impugned judgment and award, the enquiry revealed that the truck driver did not give deep attention to his driving, negligently drove his vehicle, which resulted in the accident. Lunglei P.S. Case No. 168/2011 dated 23.8.2011 was registered under section 279/304 ‘A’ IPC and was duly investigated into. 9. When the driver was examined, he stated that he did not see the electric cable line running in front of him across the road. It is the finding of the learned Tribunal that he had driven the vehicle negligently. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the MACT framed the following issues : “(i) Whether the claim is maintainable or not and whether the claimant is the only rightful person of the deceased family or not? (ii) Whether the claimant compensation is highly exaggerated or not? (iii) Whether the claimant is entitled to get any compensation, if so, up to what extent? (iv) Whether there is any ostensible source of income of the deceased or not?” 10. Referring to the 5 witnesses, who were examined on behalf of the claimant, learned MACT has held that the claimant/respondent No. 1 is entitled to the aforementioned compensation due to the death of his son. As regards the plea of the Insurance Company that it was the Power/Electric Department, which were responsible for the accident, the MACT has held, thus : “(3) Instant case comes under the Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor. As regards the plea of the Insurance Company that it was the Power/Electric Department, which were responsible for the accident, the MACT has held, thus : “(3) Instant case comes under the Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor. Hon’ble Supreme Court has given the ruling in Ramana E. Naik v. Joaquim Periera, AIR 1976 Goa 43 at p 45 “When the vehicle broke down the culvert and fell into the rivulet it was held that the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor was attracted to show negligence of the driver”. Hon’ble High Court also has given ruling in Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Jugadish Babu, 1986 ACJ 80 at p 892 (Knt). “In the above noted case it became clear the Omnibus, after leaving the road, hit against the road side kerb-stones and uprooted them, went 90 feet further and then plunged into the well. These circumstances attract the principle of the Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor. They speak about the rashness and negligence on the part of driver of the Omnibus”. (4) That instant MACT case is very much similar to above noted cases because it proves without any doubt, it speak about the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of truck. (5) That in the case record the deposition of all important witness is there. The issues framed by court also in favour of claimant, moreover the enclosed document also Exhibit without any objection of O.P’s.” 11. Sections 165 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 speak of accidents involving the death of or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles. Thus, the emphasis is on “arising out of the use of motor vehicle” and also “arising out of an accident”. In the instant case, the accident occurred when the vehicle being driven by the respondent No. 3 had hit the electric cable, as a result of which, the same got cutoff and fell down on the deceased. The live wire, which fell on the deceased due to the accident was as a result of the vehicle having hit the cable. It was an accident arising out of driving of the vehicle and, thus, the incident was the outcome of use of a motor vehicle. Thus, the Insurance Company cannot escape from its liability to pay compensation as the vehicle was insured with it. It was an accident arising out of driving of the vehicle and, thus, the incident was the outcome of use of a motor vehicle. Thus, the Insurance Company cannot escape from its liability to pay compensation as the vehicle was insured with it. It cannot shift the liability to the Power/Electric Department, as the said department of its own was not responsible for the accident. It was only because of the fact that the vehicle hit the cable and the same got cutoff and fell down on the deceased, it resulted in electrocution of the deceased. 12. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the plea of non-joinder of necessary party and for that matter, the plea that it is the Electric/Power Department, which is responsible for payment of compensation, is not acceptable. This now leads us to the second ground, on which, this appeal has been preferred, which is, as noted above, deduction of 50% of the income of the deceased. In paragraph 26, 27 and 28 of Syed Basheer Ahamed (supra), the Apex Court, referring to the said position, held, thus : “26. In the circumstances, having regard to the material on record, in our opinion, ends of justice would be met if the income of the deceased is taken at Rs. 5,500 per month or Rs. 66,000 per annum. 27. On the question of deduction on account of personal expenses by the deceased, there is no set formula which could be applied in every case to determine as to what should be the deduction on this account. The contention that deduction on that count cannot exceed one-third on the ground that there is some statutory recognition in the Second Schedule to the Act for such deduction, is untenable. The said deduction would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 28. In the present case, no evidence was led on this point as well. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the practice is to deduct towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, one-third of the income in case he was married and one-half (50%) if he was a bachelor. Thus, there is no material on record warranting interference with the consistent view of both the courts below on the point.” 13. Thus, there is no material on record warranting interference with the consistent view of both the courts below on the point.” 13. Learned counsel, representing the respondent No. 1 fairly submits that in view of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court and having regard to the fact that the deceased was a bachelor, there will be deduction of 50% of the income of the deceased. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and award stands modified substituting the compensation amount of Rs. 8,17,500 as Rs. 6,05,500 taking into account the 50% of the monthly income of. the deceased (Rs. 6000-Rs. 3000 = Rs. 3000). Remaining part of the judgment and award shall hold the field. 14. The appeal partly succeeds. Registry shall send down the LCR to the court below along with the copy of this judgment and order.