JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. New India Assurance Company has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 18.03.2010, rendered by Tribunal, granting the compensation to the tune of Rupees Three Lakh Eight Thousand, along with six percent annual interest from the date of filing the petition. The amount had to be deposited within a month; otherwise the Insurance Company was liable to pay nine percent annual interest instead of six percent. 2. Deceased Vinod Kumar, a young man of 27 years of age, lost his life in the accident, caused by the truck covered under the insurance scheme of the Company. He has an unmarried youth. The claimants are the real brothers of such deceased. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the Company has based his whole arguments on the edifice that the claimants/brothers were not the dependents of the deceased Vinod Kumar, so, they cannot claim any compensation on account of the death, in question. It can also notably be written that the deceased’s parents have already died. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the Insurance Company has further contended that respondent no.1 Mr. Mukesh Kumar, respondent no.2 Mr. Pramod Kumar @ Sonu have attained the age of their majority and running in their 20’s, so, at least, they cannot claim any compensation. Such compensation can be awarded, at the most, to the respondent no.3 Abhishekh Kumar, who is minor and in that eventuality, dependency towards Abhishekh Kumar (respondent no.3) cannot wholly be attributed on the deceased but it should fall to the extent of 1/3rd share considering that Abhishekh Kumar (respondent no.3) is under the supervision and care of all the three elder brothers. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the Insurance Company has vehemently relied upon the famous Sarla Verma Case, reported in 2009 (2) T.A.C. 677 (S.C.), where in Para No. 15, the Hon’ble Court has made the following observations:- 6. It will be befitting to reproduce Para No. 15 as under:- “Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelor, normally, 50 percent is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. It will be befitting to reproduce Para No. 15 as under:- “Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelor, 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 parent/s are siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependant on the father. Thus, even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50 percent would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50 percent is large and dependant 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 the one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.” 7. All these arguments of learned Senior Counsel of the Insurance Company have been refuted by learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3 by placing reliance upon the Allahabad High Court’s judgment, rendered by the Division Bench, in Mohd. Unus and Another Vs. Rais and Others, 2015 (2) T.A.C. 526 and the sum and substance of such judgment is that Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, nowhere talks about the payment of compensation to the dependents instead of, it contemplates that the payment of such compensation to the legal heirs of such deceased. 8. Undoubtedly, all the three claimants are the real brothers of Vinod Kumar (deceased). 8. Undoubtedly, all the three claimants are the real brothers of Vinod Kumar (deceased). Even, in Sarla Verma Case, as indicated above, fifty percent deductions towards the personal living expenses, though, finds place where the deceased was a bachelor but at the same time, this is not always on standard formula, it always remains in variance, looking to the entire family structure and members, among whom, the deceased was living. It manifests that deceased, though, was a bachelor and even in near future, there might have been possibility of his being married in a short time, all the same fact remains that he was responsible to take care of his minor brother Abhishekh Kumar (respondent no.3). It is not warranted for this Court to attribute 1/3rd liability of the deceased in taking care of his minor brother Abhishekh Kumar because it depends upon circumstances to circumstances of each family and feeling of attachment nay the feeling of responsibility, among the brothers surviving. 9. Even for a moment, the argument of learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is accepted in this regard, then also the amount of evaluation of compensation cannot diminish on this score. 10. In view what has been set forth above, this appeal has no force and it is hereby dismissed.