JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. The Insurance Company (appellant) has come up before this Court challenging the judgment and order dated 03.08.2008 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Haldwani, Nainital, adjudicating the Case No.237 of 2006, wherein the liability of the compensation of Rs. 3,37,000/- has been fastened upon the Insurance Company. 2. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that on the date of accident i.e. 27th July, 2006, the vehicle, involved in the accident, did not have any permit to ply the same in the region of Uttarakhand and it had valid permit to ply only within the territory of Uttar Pradesh and such permit for goods carriage was valid w.e.f. 16.11.2004 to 15.11.2009. 3. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has relied upon Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which reads as under:- “Except as may be otherwise prescribed, a permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority of any one region shall not be valid in any other region, unless the permit has been countersigned by the Regional Transport Authority of that other region, and a permit granted in any one State shall not be valid in any other State unless countersigned by the State Transport Authority of that other State or by the Regional Transport Authority concerned.” 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the vehicle could validly be driven within the territory of Uttarakhand even on the date of accident because the Uttarakhand Government, through its office of Regional Transport, Haldwani, was regularly and consistently collecting the additional tax under Section 5 of the Act for every quarter of a year eversince the year 2005. A number of entries, for recovery of such additional tax, in the certificate, issued by the Regional Transport Office, Haldwani, have been shown to this Court, displaying the deposit of tax from time to time even up to 30.09.2007, which covers the date of accident. 5. It was further argued by learned counsel for the claimants that pursuant to such deposit, a duplicate certificate was issued from the office of the Transport Commissioner, Uttarakhand, ratifying and countersigning the issuance of permit w.e.f. 23.11.2004 to 15.11.2009. This period covers the date of accident. 6. 5. It was further argued by learned counsel for the claimants that pursuant to such deposit, a duplicate certificate was issued from the office of the Transport Commissioner, Uttarakhand, ratifying and countersigning the issuance of permit w.e.f. 23.11.2004 to 15.11.2009. This period covers the date of accident. 6. I am of the view that the liability cannot be shifted on account of any bar so relied upon by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company under Section 88 of the Act because the office of the Transport Commissioner, Uttarakhand, has ratified the issuance of permit and countersigned the same with retrospective effect even for the period, including the date of accident. 7. As regards the quantum, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has relied upon the case of “Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 ”, wherein, Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:- “Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor 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 one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.” 8. I am of the view that the Trial Court has deducted one-third in a wrong notion while half of the total income should have been taken as the personal expenses of the deceased, had he been survived. It is pertinent to mention here that the deceased was a bachelor and he did not have wife and children, so, the entire dependency will be deducted by half of the total amount, which is calculated as under:- Rs.18,000/- per annum x 13 = Rs.2,34,000/-. Rest of the amount as has been added by the Trial Court is left intact. So, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,59,000/-. 9. Therefore, the petition is dismissed on merits. So far as the quantum is concerned, it is modified from Rs.3,37,000/- to the extent of Rs.2,59,000/- with interest of 7% per annum as has been directed by the Tribunal.