JUDGMENT : J.K. MAHESHWARI, J. 1. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed by appellant insurance company arising out of award dated 27.11.2015 passed by AMACT, Bhopal in MCC No. 220 of 2014 whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 38,10,000 on account of death of Varsha Shrivas, wife of respondent No. 1 Gaurav Shrivas and daughter-in-law of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Gokaran Nath and Geeta. On perusal of the record of the case, it reveals that Varsha Shrivas died in an accident while she was travelling as a passenger in a bus bearing registration No. MP 04-HB 9188, which was driven rashly and negligently by the driver of the bus which turned turtle. However, being an employee of Union Bank of India, compensation to the tune of Rs. 94,25,000 was claimed. The Tribunal accepted the earnings of the deceased being an employee of the bank as Rs. 42,661.50 per month, which comes to Rs. 5,11,938 per annum. After deducting 20 per cent income tax, annual earnings were accepted as Rs. 4,09,551. After deducting 50 per cent amount towards personal expenses and applying the multiplier of 18 looking to the age of the deceased, loss of dependency was assessed at Rs. 36,85,950 and further awarding Rs. 1,25,000 under conventional heads, total compensation of Rs. 38,10,000 has been awarded. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant insurance company contends that as claimant No. 1 husband and the claimant No. 2 father-in-law both were getting regular salary from their job either in multinational company or in the Housing Board even after the death of Varsha Shrivas, however, 50 per cent deduction on account of dependency assessed by the Claims Tribunal is on higher side, which may be reasonably reduced. In the facts of the case, the deduction of 50 per cent towards personal expenses is justifiable because the deceased being an educated lady, doing job in Union Bank of India and getting salary of more than Rs. 42,000 would have spent at least 50 per cent amount on her own because her husband was working in a multinational company and father-in-law was also working in the Housing Board, itself cannot be a ground to refuse them compensation. 42,000 would have spent at least 50 per cent amount on her own because her husband was working in a multinational company and father-in-law was also working in the Housing Board, itself cannot be a ground to refuse them compensation. Considering the same, in my considered opinion, the Tribunal has rightly deducted 50 per cent amount from the earnings of the deceased and rightly assessed the salary of the deceased at Rs. 42,661.50 per month and Rs. 5,11,938 per annum. After deducting 20 per cent income tax, annual earnings were rightly accepted as Rs. 4,09,551. After deducting 50 per cent amount for personal expenses and applying the multiplier of 18 looking to the age of the deceased, loss of dependency was assessed at Rs. 36,85,950 and further awarding Rs. 1,25,000 under conventional heads, total compensation of Rs. 38,10,000 has been awarded. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has also raised point of violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy on the ground that the bus was overloaded. In my considered opinion the insurance company is liable to pay amount of compensation to the extent of sanctioned seats of the bus. It is not a case of insurance company that the claim petition was filed for more than sanctioned strength of the bus. In absence thereof the plea taken regarding violation of the terms of the policy is devoid of merit. In view of the aforesaid, this appeal filed by the insurance company is devoid of merit, hence dismissed.