JUDGMENT & ORDER : T. VAIPHEI, J. 1. In this appeal, the appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Court No. 2), West Tripura in his award dated 11-12-2012 of T.S. (M.A.C.) No. 198 of 2009 from Rs. 6,49,193/- to Rs. 10,00,000/-. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be briefly noticed at the outset. In the evening of 23-2-2009 at about 6 PM, while the deceased Bapi Das was proceeding from his residence towards Agartala by foot, one motorcycle bearing Registration No. TR-04-5666 coming from backside dashed against him at Chandrapur-Balda Khal Road and waylaid him on the road thereby causing severe injuries on his head and other parts of his body. He was then shifted to G.B. Hospital by the local people, where he was admitted on the same day. He was then referred to S.S.K.M. Hospital, Kolkata where he shifted and admitted therein on 26-2-2009. In course of his treatment, he succumbed to his injuries on 5-3-2009 at the hospital. A police case was registered against the rider of the offending motorcycle over the accident as East Agartala P.S. Case No. 47/09 U/s 279/338/304-A IPC, who was subsequently charge-sheeted by the police. 3. The appellant No. 1 is the mother of the deceased, whereas the appellant No. 2 and 3 are his younger brother and sister. He is stated to have maintained his mother and other family members due to the premature death of his father, who predeceased them. They, therefore, filed the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura against the owner of the motor cycle and the United India Insurance Company claiming a compensation of Rs. 10,02,000/- for the death of the deceased. The claim petition was contested by both the owner of the motorcycle and the insurer. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, passed the impugned award directing the payment of compensation to the order of Rs. 6,49,193/- together with interest @ 9% per annum to the appellants. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, this appeal is now preferred by the appellants for enhancement of the compensation payable from Rs. 6,49,193/- to Rs. 10,00,000/- together with interest @ 9% per annum. 4. Assailing the impugned award, Mr. A. Das, the learned counsel for the appellants, contends that the award of Rs. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, this appeal is now preferred by the appellants for enhancement of the compensation payable from Rs. 6,49,193/- to Rs. 10,00,000/- together with interest @ 9% per annum. 4. Assailing the impugned award, Mr. A. Das, the learned counsel for the appellants, contends that the award of Rs. 19,562/- as against the actual expenditures incurred by the deceased for the cost of his medicines is ill-conceived and unrealistic considering the nature of his injuries and the same needs to be revised to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. He also submits that the learned Member has failed to consider the actual air fares incurred for the deceased and his attendants which came to Rs. 57,972/-, which is actual expenditures so incurred and has wrongly awarded only Rs. 49,686/- in this behalf. He further submits that when it has been sufficiently proved that the deceased was an electrician-cumdecorator not only employed by the owner of Joy Ram Electric and Decorators at Old Agartala but also doing other electrical wiring works privately in various houses, he could not have earned only Rs. 4,000/- per month as determined by the Tribunal; considering the present day wages earned by self-employed youths, he could have easily earned not less than Rs. 6,000/- per month. According to the learned counsel, the income of the deceased as determined by the Tribunal is very much on the lower side, and even though the appellants could not show documentary evidence, the Tribunal could have applied its common sense for determining the income of the deceased by taking into account the wages earned by daily laborers these days; even skilled construction workers are now getting not less than Rs. 400/- per day. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that it has escaped the attention of the Tribunal that the appellants have proved that the deceased, though a bachelor, was supporting the appellants, who are his mother and his two school-going younger brother and sister from his earnings, but the Tribunal has overlooked this relevant factor for treating it as the compelling reason for deviating from the principle of deduction of 50% towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased and has in the process erroneously deducted 50% instead of 30% towards his personal and living expenses. He finally argues that this is a fit case for modifying the impugned award by enhancing the amount of compensation payable to the appellants. To fortify his submissions, the learned counsel for the appellants relies on the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Devi v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . 5. Opposing the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. P. Gautam, the learned counsel for the insurer, submits that there is absolutely nothing wrong in the impugned award which was passed by the learned Member of the Tribunal after carefully examining all aspects into consideration. According to the learned counsel, the appellants have miserably failed to prove the income of the deceased with documentary evidence, or any exceptional circumstances or compelling reasons so as to enable the Tribunal to deviate from the principle of deducting 50% of his income towards his personal and living expenses as the glaring fact remains that he died as a bachelor. He further contends that compensation so claimed should be just and reasonable, and must be proportionate to the damage and should neither be a bonanza nor a source of profit nor a pittance. So judged on the touchstone of the aforesaid principles, maintains the learned counsel for the insurer, the award of Rs. 6,49,193/- in favour of the appellants is just and reasonable particularly when there is no satisfactory proof of the income of the deceased or of the dependency of the appellants upon the deceased. He, therefore, strenuously urges this Court to uphold the impugned award and dismiss the appeal. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. I have also carefully gone through the impugned award as well as the materials on record. The first point for consideration in this appeal is whether the Tribunal is correct in determining the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,000/- per month. In my opinion, the determination of the monthly income at Rs. 4,000/- appears to be on the lower side. In the first place, the respondents do not seriously dispute the evidence of the appellants that the deceased was employed as an electrician-cumdecorator in the employment of Joy Ram Electric and Decorators situated at Old Agartala, who was examined as PW 3 in the trial. 4,000/- appears to be on the lower side. In the first place, the respondents do not seriously dispute the evidence of the appellants that the deceased was employed as an electrician-cumdecorator in the employment of Joy Ram Electric and Decorators situated at Old Agartala, who was examined as PW 3 in the trial. This witness in his examination-in-chief testified that the deceased was earning Rs. 7,000/- per month. In his reply to the Court, he deposed that initially, he was paying Rs. 3,000/- per month as salary, and thereafter his salary was increased. No attempt, except that of simple denial, was made by the insurer or the owner of the offending vehicle to disprove or falsify this statement. Simply by making denial of the testimony of the witness, the respondents cannot establish their case that the deceased was not earning at all or was earning less than Rs. 7,000/- per month. It cannot also be lost sight of the fact that in addition to such earning, the deceased was also engaged for electric wirings in the locality, for which it could be easily inferred that he earned Rs. 1,000/- or more per month. However, in view of the conflicting evidence of the appellant No. 1 and PW No. 2 and PW 3 regarding the income of the deceased, which ranges from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 7,000/-, it will be safe to fix the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- inasmuch as there is no serious dispute that the deceased was an electrician-cum-decorator, who can be regarded as a skilled worker during his lifetime. In these days, it is not difficult for a skilled worker to earn at least Rs. 300/- per day by self-employment or otherwise. 7. The next question for determination is whether the deceased incurred Rs. 50,000/- as the cost of his medicines as claimed by the appellants. As already noticed, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 19,562/- in this behalf. However, on perusing the cash memos for the medicines exhibited by the appellants, I am of the view that the Tribunal is not wide off the mark in awarding Rs. 19,562/- under this head, and the same need not be interfered with. As for reimbursement of the airfares also, the Tribunal correctly awarded Rs. 49,686/- under this head since as per the referral certificate, the deceased was entitled to only one escort. 19,562/- under this head, and the same need not be interfered with. As for reimbursement of the airfares also, the Tribunal correctly awarded Rs. 49,686/- under this head since as per the referral certificate, the deceased was entitled to only one escort. Therefore, this aspect of the matter also does not require to be interfered with. However, the Tribunal ought to have determined the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- per month. 8. Having determined the income of the deceased at the time of his death, I will assess the compensation payable to the appellants. What should be the guiding factors for assessment of the compensation has been explained by the Apex Court in Sarla Devi case (supra) in the following manner: “18. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death: (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and (c) the number of dependants. 9. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are: (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. * * * 19. To have uniformity and consistency, the Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by the following well-settled steps: Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependant family, constitutes the multiplicand. Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased. Step 3 (Actual calculation) The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the “loss of dependency” to the family. Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 10,000/- may be added as loss of estate. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of 5000/- to 10,000/- should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased. The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred) should also be added.” 10. As for addition to income for future prospects, the Apex Court observed in the same judgment as follows: “24. In Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 335 this Court increased the income by nearly 100%, in Sarla Dixit the income was increased only by 50% and in Abati Bezbaruah, (2003) 3 SCC 148 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 746 the income was increased by a mere 7%. In view of the imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. (Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words “actual salary” should be read as “actual salary less tax”). The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardise the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculation being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments, etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments, etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure there from should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances.” 11. On the question of deduction for personal and living expenses, this is what the Apex Court said: (SCC, p.136, paras 30, 31and 32) “30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 362 the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six. 31. 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. 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. 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 dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. 32. 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. 32. 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 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.” 12. Applying the aforesaid principles, to determine the loss of dependency, if the income of the deceased was Rs. 5,000/- at the time of his death, the same is to be multiplied by 12 to arrive at his annual income, which comes to Rs. 60,000/-, to which 50% i.e. Rs. 30,000/- shall be added towards his future prospects of income, in which case, his annual income would come to Rs. 90,000/-. As there is sufficient evidence to prove that the deceased was maintaining his mother and his two siblings, 1/3rd of his income shall be deducted as his living and personal expenses, which will come to Rs. 90,000-Rs. 30,000=Rs. 60,000/-. As the deceased was 23 years at the time of his death, the appropriate multiplier applicable is 18, in which case, the total loss of dependency would be Rs. 60,000 × 18=Rs. 10,80,000/-. On considering all facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason to change the amounts awarded by the Tribunal on the remaining heads or on the interest, namely, Rs. 19,562/- for the cost of medicines, Rs. 49,868/- for cost of air fares, Rs. 1,490/- for ambulance service from Kolkata airport to SSKM Hospital, Rs. 1,305/- for carrying the dead body of the deceased from Kolata to Agartala, Rs. 1,650/- for carrying body from Peace Haven, Kolkata to Kolkata airport, Rs. 3,900/- paid to Peace Haven, Kolkata for keeping the body for one night, Rs. 5,000/- for funeral expenses and another sum of Rs. 5,000/- for the expenditures incurred by the escort of the deceased for lodging, food, conveyance charges, etc. Thus, the total amount of compensation payable to the appellants comes to Rs. 3,900/- paid to Peace Haven, Kolkata for keeping the body for one night, Rs. 5,000/- for funeral expenses and another sum of Rs. 5,000/- for the expenditures incurred by the escort of the deceased for lodging, food, conveyance charges, etc. Thus, the total amount of compensation payable to the appellants comes to Rs. 11,67,775/- (Rupees eleven lakhs sixty-seven thousand seven hundred and seventy-five) only together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from the date of the claim petition. 13. For the reasons stated in the foregoing, this appeal succeeds. The insurer-respondent No. 2 is, therefore, directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 11,67,775/- together with interest @ 9% per annum with effect from the date of the claim petition to this Registry within two months from the date of receipt of this judgment for payment to the appellants. The impugned award stands modified in the manner and only to the extent indicated above. As and when the aforesaid amounts are deposited, the Registry will release the same to the appellants through the appellant No. 1 by the usual arrangements without further reference from this Court. There shall, however, be no order as to cost. Needless to say, any amount already paid to the appellants or deposited by the insurer shall be adjusted accordingly. Transmit the L.C. record forthwith. A copy of this judgment shall be supplied to the learned counsel for the insurer-respondent for immediate compliance.