JUDGMENT : This appeal is presented against the judgment and award dated February 1, 2008 in MVC No. 371 of 2002 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Bengaluru Rural District. ('Tribunal' for short). 2. The instant claim petition, for compensation, was filed by the grandfather, father, brother and sister of the deceased, contending inter alia, that on March 9, 2002, the Lorry bearing registration No. TN 23/W 7655 dashed against the scooter, causing grievous injuries to its rider, Sudarshan, who succumbed to the injuries on way to the hospital. 3. On behalf of the claimants, father and brother of the deceased were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2; and fourteen exhibits were marked. None was examined nor any exhibits marked on behalf of the respondents. 4. Tribunal framed four issues for it's consideration. On appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal held that the claimants were entitled for compensation under the head 'loss of dependency'. It accepted the evidence of P.W.1 that the deceased was earning Rs.4,500/- per month. For the purpose of calculating the loss of dependency, 50% of victim's earnings was deducted towards his personal expenditure, as he was a bachelor. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.20,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and in all awarded a total sum of Rs.4,94,000/-. 5. The principal argument advanced by Shri R.Rajagopalan, learned Counsel for the appellant - Insurer, in support of this appeal is that, none of the claimants were 'dependants' on the deceased. Amplifying his submission, he contended that, PW.1, the father of the deceased has admitted in his cross-examination that his first son (claimant No.3), was staying separately after his marriage; and his daughter (fourth claimant), was married and staying with her husband. Shri Rajagopalan, next adverted to the deposition of P.W.2 and pointed out that, his mother had passed away in the year 1979, and his father had married again, in a short span thereafter. He argued that, P.W.2 has deposed in unequivocal terms, that his father never took care of his children born to the first wife and they grew up under the care of their grand father (first claimant). 6. Shri Rajagopalan, placed reliance on two authorities. He argued that, P.W.2 has deposed in unequivocal terms, that his father never took care of his children born to the first wife and they grew up under the care of their grand father (first claimant). 6. Shri Rajagopalan, placed reliance on two authorities. Firstly, on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 , and secondly, on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of A. Manavalagan v. A. Krishnamurty & other reported in I(2005) ACC 304 (DB), and contended that, where the claimants are not dependants, they shall be entitled for compensation only under the head 'loss of estate'. Assailing the impugned judgment, he argued that the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation under the head 'loss of dependency' and pleaded for allowing this appeal. 7. Opposing the appeal, Shri K. Shantharaj, learned Counsel for the claimants No.3 and 4 mainly advanced two contentions. Firstly, that the Insurer did not plead before the Tribunal that the claimants were not dependants. Secondly, that the evidence of P.W.2 cannot be considered, as he was not cross-examined. 8. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Montford Brothers of St. Gabriel and another v. United India Insurance and another reported in (2014)3 SCC 394 and argued that the claimants were dependants and therefore, rightly entitled for the compensation. With these submissions, he prayed for dismissal of this appeal. 9. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. 10. Incontrovertible facts of this case are, the claim petition was presented by grandfather, father, brother and sister of the deceased. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma, has held as follows with regard to the cases in which the deceased was a bachelor: "15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally 50 per cent 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. In regard to bachelors, normally 50 per cent 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 independents and earning, or married, or be dependent 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 per cent would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50 per cent as the contribution to the family." (emphasis supplied) 12. In the case of A. Manavalagan, supra, a Division Bench of this Court has held as follows:- "19.xxxxxxxxxxx (iii) Where the claim by the legal representatives of the deceased who were not dependants of the deceased, then the basis for award of compensation is the loss to the estate, that is the loss of savings by the deceased. A conventional sum for loss of expectation of life is added." 13. With regard to the argument on behalf of the claimants, that the Insurer did not plead before the Tribunal that the claimants were not dependants, it is to be noted that the evidence on record is overwhelming. In his examination-in-chief, the father of the deceased has stated that the third and the fourth petitioners were married and had their independent earnings. He has categorically stated that, they were not 'dependants', upon the deceased 'at any point of time'. In the cross-examination also, he has admitted that the third and the fourth claimants were married and staying separately. With regard to his livelihood, he has admitted that, he had agricultural land and getting disability pension. 14. Further, as per father's evidence, it is clear that the brother and the sister of the deceased were not 'dependants' and he was making his living from the agricultural land and the Disability Pension. With regard to his livelihood, he has admitted that, he had agricultural land and getting disability pension. 14. Further, as per father's evidence, it is clear that the brother and the sister of the deceased were not 'dependants' and he was making his living from the agricultural land and the Disability Pension. Thus, it is clear from the pleading and evidence brought on record by the claimants themselves that they were not 'dependents' on the deceased. 15. In the authority, Montford Brothers supra, cited by the learned Counsel for the claimants, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if there is justification in consonance with principles of justice, equity and good conscience, a dependant of the deceased may be denied right to claim compensation. (see para-13). 16. The specific case of the father of the deceased is that, he was the only dependant and the brother and sister of the deceased were not 'dependants' at 'any point of time'. However, in his evidence, he has admitted that he owns agricultural land and gets disability pension. The specific case of P.W.2, is that, his father abandoned his children born to the first wife and never took care of them. The evidence of P.W.2, has remained un-impeached on record. No efforts seems to have been made by the father of the deceased to dilute the same, by taking recourse to Section 154 of the Evidence Act. 17. Thus, a careful analysis of the entire evidence on record and the law on the point leads to an irresistible inference that the claimants are entitled for compensation only under the head 'loss of estate'. 18. The Tribunal has accepted the earning capacity of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month and applied 17 as the multiplier. Following the principle laid down in the case of A.Manavalagan, supra, the savings of the deceased will have to be reckoned at 15%, which works out to Rs.675/- per month. Thus, the annual savings, the multiplicand works out to Rs.8,100/- [675x12] and the total quantum of 'loss of estate' works out to Rs.1,37,700/- [8100x17]. 19. So far as the entitlement of each claimant is concerned, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the first claimant, the grandfather died during the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal. Remaining claimants are father, brother and the sister of the deceased. They are all Class-II heirs. 19. So far as the entitlement of each claimant is concerned, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the first claimant, the grandfather died during the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal. Remaining claimants are father, brother and the sister of the deceased. They are all Class-II heirs. Therefore, they shall be entitled for equal share in the compensation. 20. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal merits consideration and deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following:- ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed, holding that the claimants shall be entitled for compensation only under the head 'loss of estate' quantified at Rs.1,37,700/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit; (ii) Claimants namely, father, brother and sister shall be entitled to equal 1/3rd share in the compensation amount; (iii) Appellant - Insurance Company shall deposit the compensation amount excluding the amount if any, already paid, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (iv) Upon such deposit by the Insurance Company, the Tribunal shall place 50% of the compensation amount in equal proportion in the name of claimants No.2, 3 and 4, in a Fixed Deposit in any nationalized Bank for a period of three years and disburse the balance amount in equal proportion to the said claimants; Registry is directed to transmit the statutory amount deposited by the Insurance Company to the Tribunal for disbursement, in accordance with law. No costs. MFA NO. 7781/2008 01.09.2017 After pronouncement of judgment, Shri R. Rajagopalan, learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company submitted that the Insurer has deposited Rs.2,72,000/- inclusive of the statutory deposit in this Court, which is placed in deposit in a Bank. He prays that the said amount may be transferred to the Tribunal for disbursement. The registry is directed to send the amount deposited by the insurer-appellant together with accrued interest to the Tribunal for disbursement in accordance with law. Further Tribunal is directed to refund the amount, in excess, if any, to the Insurer.