JUDGMENT : Heard the learned counsel for the appellant – Insurance Company and the learned counsel for the Respondents no.1 & 2 and perused the records. 2. The insurance company has preferred this appeal, challenging the liability fastened on it and also the quantum of compensation in a sum of Rs.7,95,000/- awarded by the MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore (SCCH-4) in MVC No.7212/2012 by the impugned judgment and award dated 15.10.2014, seeking reduction in the compensation awarded by the tribunal. 3. The facts of the case are that on 9.6.2012 at about 1.10 p.m. when one Manjunatha was crossing the road at Singasandra bus stop, near Sri. Devi Upahara towards the auto stand on the main road, a Honda city car bearing Registration No.KA-51-M-1890 which was driven at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, had dashed against him as a result of which Manjunatha sustained grievous injuries. He was immediately admitted to hospital and was under treatment but however he had succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment. The said Manjunatha who was aged about 35 years and a bachelor, was an Electrician / auto driver and was said to be earning Rs.10,000/- per month. In view of his death, the claimants had lost his love and affection and also the earning member of their family. In view of having lost their bread-winner, the claimants had filed a claim petition in MVC.7212/2012 before the Tribunal seeking compensation. On receipt of notice, the third respondent being the owner of the offending vehicle and the appellant herein – Insurance Company appeared through counsel and filed their written statements, wherein they had denied the averments made in the claim petition and also the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle regarding occurrence of the accident and also denied the entire petition averments. The Insurance Company contended that the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time when the accident occurred. But he has admitted the Insurance Policy in respect of the offending vehicle and its validity as on the date of the accident and also contended that their liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. The above facts are evident from the written statement filed by them. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the claim petition. But he has admitted the Insurance Policy in respect of the offending vehicle and its validity as on the date of the accident and also contended that their liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. The above facts are evident from the written statement filed by them. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the claim petition. In order to substantiate their case, the claimants – respondents herein examined the first claimant K. Tulasi as PW-1 and got marked documents Exhibits P-1 to P-14. In support of the case of the appellant – Insurance Company, its Administrative Officer one Kusuma was examined as RW-1 and got marked documents Exhibits R1 and R2. The Tribunal, after evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence has held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligence of the offending vehicle. Taking the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- and adding Rs.2,500/- towards future prospects, it had arrived at the income at Rs.7,500/- per month. The deceased being a bachelor, deducting 50% towards his personal and living expenses and considering the age of the deceased at 30 and applying multiplier ‘17’, the Tribunal had awarded a total compensation of Rs.7,95,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, under the following heads : Sl. No. Headings Amount Rs. 1. Loss of estate Rs.7,65,000/- 2. Transportation of the dead body and funeral expenses Rs. 10,000/- 3. Loss of love and affection Rs. 10,000/- 4. Loss of estate Rs. 10,000/- TOTAL Rs.7,95,000/- It is this judgment and award which is under challenge in this appeal. 4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondents. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant during the course of his arguments has taken me through the impugned judgment and also the documents which have been got marked as Exhibits P1 to P14 on behalf of the claimants – respondents and Exhibit R1 the policy copy and Exhibit R2 the copy of the inquest mahazar which have been got marked on behalf of the appellant – Insurance Company. PW-1 being the sister of the deceased has been subjected to examination, who has filed an affidavit evidence reiterating the averments made in the claim petition. PW-1 being the sister of the deceased has been subjected to examination, who has filed an affidavit evidence reiterating the averments made in the claim petition. But however, no documents have been produced to show that the deceased Manjunatha was by avocation an autorickshaw driver as on the date of the accident on account of which he died. No evidence has been placed by PW-1 in order to establish her case that the petitioners were dependants of deceased Manjunatha, their brother. It is stated that the petitioners were married sisters of the deceased and to that effect, the learned counsel has produced the mahazar at Exhibit R2 including the statements made by Smt. Bhagya, W/o. Ramesh during the course of inquest held by the police. That itself indicates that she is married. PW-1 Tulasi was the married sister of the deceased. Therefore, married sisters are not entitled to seek any loss of dependency in view of the death of their brother Manjunatha. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of A. Manavalagan vs. A. Krishnamurthy and others ( 2005 ACJ 992 ) wherein reliance is placed on paragraph 19, which reads thus: “19 (iii) Where the claim by the legal representatives of the deceased who were not dependent on 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. (iv) The procedure for determination of loss to estate is broadly the same as the procedure for determination of the loss of dependency. Both involve ascertaining the multiplicand and capitalizing it by multiplying it by an appropriate multiplier. But, the significant difference is in the figure arrived at as the multiplicand in cases where the claimants who are dependent claim loss of dependency, and in cases where the claimants who are not dependent claim loss to estate. The annual contribution to the family constitutes the multiplicand in the case of loss of dependency, whereas the annual savings of the deceased becomes the multiplicand in the case of loss to estate. The annual contribution to the family constitutes the multiplicand in the case of loss of dependency, whereas the annual savings of the deceased becomes the multiplicand in the case of loss to estate. The method of selection of multiplier is however the same in both cases.” In the same judgment at paragraph 20 clause (v), the Division Bench has observed that if the claimants are non-dependent brothers / sisters claiming on behalf of the estate, the savings can be taken at 15% of the income. This aspect has been failed to be noticed by the learned Tribunal while passing the award. The relevant portion of the judgment reads thus : “20 (v) … Though the quantum of savings will vary from person to person, there is a need to standardize the quantum of savings for determining the loss to estate (where the claimants are not dependants) in the absence of specific evidence to the contrary. The quantum of savings can be taken as one-third of the income of the deceased where the spouses are having a common establishment and one-fourth where the spouses are having independent establishments. The above will apply where the family consists of nondependent spouse / children / parents. Where the claimants are non-dependent brothers / sisters claiming on behalf of the estate, the savings can be taken as 15 per cent of the income. The above percentages are, of course, subject to any specific evidence to the contrary led by the claimants. (emphasis supplied) 6. It is the further contention of the counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal while awarding compensation, has taken the age of the deceased to be 30 years and has adopted the multiplier ‘17’. But in fact, it is submitted that the age of the deceased was 35 years and hence the appropriate multiplier ought to have been taken at ‘16’ while computing the compensation. Therefore, the compensation requires to be re-visited on this aspect also. Further, though the Tribunal has taken his notional income at Rs.5,000/- per month, it has proceeded to add 50% to his future prospects i.e. an amount of Rs.2,500/- and has arrived at Rs.7,500/- as the total income of the deceased. Taking his income at Rs.7,500/-, however the Tribunal has rightly deducted 50% towards his personal and living expenses since he was a bachelor and has arrived at the loss of dependency at Rs.3,750/- per month. Taking his income at Rs.7,500/-, however the Tribunal has rightly deducted 50% towards his personal and living expenses since he was a bachelor and has arrived at the loss of dependency at Rs.3,750/- per month. 7. However, it is to be seen that the deceased was not having any permanent job and he was said to be an auto driver and an electrician. Since the income certificates produced at Exhibits P8 and P9 were not substantiated by examining the person who had issued the said certificates, the Tribunal had not relied upon the said certificates and had hence taken his notional income at Rs.5,000/- per month in view of the fact that there was no clear proof of income. When such being the case and the Tribunal also having held so, it has erred in proceeding to add 50% towards future prospects of the deceased when the deceased did not have a permanent job. The circumstance as to when future prospects have to be added to the income of the deceased, has been clearly pronounced by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 . The relevant paragraph reads as under: “24. In Susamma Thomas, this Court increased the income by nearly 100%, in Sarla Dixit, the income was increased only by 50% and in Abati Bezbaruah the income was increased by a mere 7%. In view of 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 deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculations 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 therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances.” (emphasis supplied) In view of the opinion rendered in the above decision, it is inferred that the Tribunal should not have added 50% towards his future prospects. Hence, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the judgment of the Tribunal requires to be re-visited on all these aspects. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents seeks to justify the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and submits that the said judgment does not call for any interference by this court. 9. Keeping in view the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal, it is relevant to state that PW-1 Tulasi being the sister of the deceased had submitted an affidavit evidence stating that on 9.6.2012 at about 1.10 p.m. when her brother Manjunatha was crossing the road at Singasandra bus stop, near Sri. Devi Upahara towards the auto stand on the main road, a Honda city car bearing Registration No.KA-51-M-1890 which was driven at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, had dashed against him as a result of which Manjunatha sustained grievous injuries. Though he was immediately admitted to hospital and was under treatment but however he had succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment. On the said basis, she along with her other sister had filed MVC 7212/2012 before the Tribunal seeking compensation. But however, it is seen that both Respondents 1 and 2 are married sisters of the deceased Manjunatha. Hence, as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, they are not entitled for compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly granted compensation under the head ‘Loss of Estate’, but has erred in granting an equivalent amount which should have been granted under the head ‘Loss of Dependency’. Further, as rightly pointed by the learned counsel, the amount of Rs.2,500/- (50%) added towards future prospects is found to be incorrect and hence, the notional income of the deceased is hereby taken at Rs.5,000/- per month. The age of the deceased being 35 years, the Tribunal has erroneously considered his age to be 30 years. Further, as rightly pointed by the learned counsel, the amount of Rs.2,500/- (50%) added towards future prospects is found to be incorrect and hence, the notional income of the deceased is hereby taken at Rs.5,000/- per month. The age of the deceased being 35 years, the Tribunal has erroneously considered his age to be 30 years. Hence, the multiplier required to be adopted is taken at ‘16’ instead of ‘17’ adopted by the Tribunal. Hence, taking the notional income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month and deducting 50% towards his personal and living expenses and adopting the multiplier ‘16’, the loss of dependency would come to Rs.4,80,000/- (2500 x 12 x 16). However, loss of dependency would not be applicable to the present case since the claimants are non-dependant sisters of the deceased. The claimants being the non-dependant sisters of the deceased, the compensation towards Loss of Estate would come to Rs.72,000/- (Rs.4,80,000 x 15%). The Tribunal though has rightly awarded compensation under the head ‘Loss of Estate’, has erroneously awarded a sum of Rs.7,65,000/- as if awarding compensation towards ‘Loss of dependency’. Hence, the same is modified to an amount of Rs.72,000/- towards ‘Loss of Estate’. The compensation awarded under the conventional heads namely, transportation of dead body and funeral expenses at Rs.10,000/- and an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection is undisturbed. However, the compensation of another Rs.10,000/- awarded under the head ‘Loss of estate’ is not proper. Hence, the said head is modified as ‘Additional expenses towards funeral expenses’. However, the grant of compensation of Rs.30,000/- under the conventional heads is left undisturbed. Hence, the total compensation to be awarded to the claimants comes to Rs.1,02,000/- (Rs.72,000/- + Rs.30,000/-). 10. Hence, the appeal is allowed in part and the Respondents 1 and 2 shall be paid compensation in a sum of Rs.1,02,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of payment. In modification of the impugned judgment and award dated 15.10.2014 passed by the MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore (SCCH-4), the compensation payable to the respondents 1 and 2 is reduced from Rs.7,95,000/- to Rs.1,02,000/-. The statutory amount deposited before this court and the lower court records shall be transmitted to the tribunal forthwith. The amount along with interest at 6% shall be disbursed to the claimants, on proper identification. The statutory amount deposited before this court and the lower court records shall be transmitted to the tribunal forthwith. The amount along with interest at 6% shall be disbursed to the claimants, on proper identification. However, the impugned judgment and award, in so far as it relates to the rate of interest is concerned, shall remain unaltered. The amount already deposited, shall be adjusted. Remaining amount in deposit if any, shall be refunded to the appellant – Insurer. There shall be no order as to the costs. Office to draw the decree accordingly.