JUDGMENT : This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 12.09.2008 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-1st Additional District Judge-Deoghar in Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Case No.23 of 1995 by which the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 70,800/- along with simple interest thereon @6% per annum from the date of filing of the application to be paid by the appellant to the respondent no.1-claimant. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the bachelor son of the respondent no.1-claimant namely Brajesh Kumar Singh died in connection with motor vehicle accident on 16.08.1995 at about 6:00 a.m. at Baijnathpur, Deoghar near the motor parts shop and godown of Shivshankar Singh caused by the truck bearing registration no.B.E.M.-9899. It is claimed that the deceased Brajesh Kumar Singh was aged about 18 years at the time of his death and he was a skilled motor parts mechanic and was earning Rs.45 per day. The respondent no.2 of this appeal who was the opposite party no.1 in the claim petition was the driver of the truck bearing registration no.B.E.M.-9899 at the time of the said accident and the respondent no.3 of this appeal who was the opposite party no.2 in the claim petition, is the owner of the truck bearing registration no.B.E.M.-9899. In the tribunal both, the owner and driver of the truck did not appear nor did they contest the claim. The appellant-opposite party no.3-Oriental Insurance Company in their written statement besides the usual defence pleaded that as the claimant had not produced any relevant document hence, he is not entitled for the claim. 3. Basing upon the rival pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed the following six issues :- Whether the claim of the claimant is maintainable? Whether the claimant has any valid cause of action? Whether the death of the deceased occurred on 16.08.1995 because of the rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing registration no.B.E.M.-9899? Whether on the date of accident, the truck bearing registration no.B.E.M.-9899 was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company? Whether the claimant is entitled for the claim from Oriental Insurance Company? and if yes then to what amount? Whether the claimant is entitled to any other relief or reliefs? 4. In support of its case, the claimant examined seven witnesses besides proving the documents but no evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant-opposite party no.3. Whether the claimant is entitled for the claim from Oriental Insurance Company? and if yes then to what amount? Whether the claimant is entitled to any other relief or reliefs? 4. In support of its case, the claimant examined seven witnesses besides proving the documents but no evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant-opposite party no.3. Basing upon the evidence in the record, the learned Tribunal answered the issue nos.3 and 4 in favour of the claimant by holding that the death of the deceased occurred on 16.08.1995 because of rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing registration no.B.E.M.-9899 and since the truck was insured with the appellant-opposite party no.3-Oriental Insurance Company from the period of 18.10.1994 to 17.10.1995 hence, the learned Tribunal found that the truck bearing registration no.B.E.M.-9899 was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company. The learned Tribunal also accepted the daily income of the deceased as Rs. 45 per day and assessed the age of the claimant to be 50 years and on the basis of the said age applied the multiplier of 11 and after deducting 1/3 of the amount towards personal expenses of the deceased, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.1,18,800/- towards compensation and further awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards cremation expenses. Thus, in total the learned tribunal awarded Rs.1,20,800/- but since 50,000/- was already paid to the claimant as interim compensation, hence, the learned Tribunal directed the appellant-opposite party no.3 to pay Rs.70,800/- to the claimant with interest at the rate of 6% per annum till realization. 5. Mr. G.C. Jha, the learned counsel for the appellant relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) And Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation And Another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 submits that since the deceased was a bachelor, the learned Tribunal erred by deducting 1/3 of his income towards personal and living expenses and submitted that since it is settled principle of law as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that in case of the deceased is a bachelor, 50% is to be deducted as personal and living expenses, hence, the learned Tribunal erred by awarding an excess amount. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal could not appreciate the evidences put forth by the claimant in the record in its proper prospective and the evidence in the record is insufficient to arrive at a finding in respect of the issues in favour of the claimant as the claimant failed to produce documents relating to vehicle involved in accident. Hence, it is submitted that the learned Tribunal ought not have awarded such high amount of compensation to the claimant. 6. Mr. Arbind Kr. Choudhary, the learned counsel for the respondent no.3 submits that it is a settled principle of law that besides the compensation, the claimant is also entitled to reasonable compensation on conventional head of funeral expenses which should be Rs.15,000/- and the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded the said amount to the claimant but instead the tribunal has awarded a paltry sum of Rs. 2,000/- hence the claimant is entitled to the differential amount of Rs. 13,000/-. It is also submitted that the tribunal erred by applying the multiplier on the basis of the age of the claimant and submitted that the multiplier ought to have been applied by the tribunal on the basis of the age of the deceased which was assessed as 18 years by the tribunal. Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 further defended the impugned award and submitted that the appellant-opposite party no.3 having not adduced any evidence whatsoever and not seriously challenged the testimony of the witnesses of the claimant and the tribunal has rightly held that the death of the deceased occurred on 16.08.1995 because of rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing registration no.B.E.M.-9899 and rightly assed the income of the deceased as Rs. 45/- per day and that the truck bearing registration no.B.E.M.-9899 was insured by the appellant-opposite party no.3. 7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the bar and perusal of the record the following two points for determination crop up in this appeal for consideration Whether the tribunal appreciated the evidence in the record properly? To what amount of compensation the claimant is entitled to? 8. 7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the bar and perusal of the record the following two points for determination crop up in this appeal for consideration Whether the tribunal appreciated the evidence in the record properly? To what amount of compensation the claimant is entitled to? 8. Now coming to the first point for determination, so far as the contention of the appellant regarding absence of evidence in the record is concerned, after going through the record, I find that the claimant has examined altogether seven witnesses including the eye-witness to the occurrence of accident and the witnesses who have deposed regarding the income of the deceased as well as the age of claimant. Perusal of the record also reveals that in the written statement the Insurance Company has not specifically denied any averment made in the claim petition nor they have adduced any evidence whatsoever. In such circumstances, I do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence in record is insufficient for the learned Tribunal to come to a conclusion that the death of the deceased was caused because of rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing registration no.B.E.M.-9899 or that his daily income was Rs.45/- per day or that he was aged about 18 years at the time of the accident or that the learned court below could not appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective. The first point for determination is answered accordingly. 9. Now coming to the second point of determination, so far as the contention of the appellant regarding deduction of personal and living expenses is concerned, it is pertinent to refer to paragraph no.31 of the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarla Verma (SMT) And Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation And Another (supra) which reads as under :- “31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows the different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal 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 parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal 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 parent(s) 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 dependent and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.” (Emphasis Supplied) 10. At this stage, it will be profitable to quote paragraph no.61 of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in 2017 (4) JBCJ 388 which reads as under :- “61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:- (i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench. (ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent. (iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. (iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. (iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. (v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore. (vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment. (vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.” (Emphasis Supplied) 11. In view of the settled principle of law in Sarla Verma (SMT) And Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation And Another (supra) and it is being the admitted case of the parties that the deceased was a bachelor certainly learned Tribunal has erred in deducting only 1/3 of his income as personal and living expenses and the learned tribunal ought to have deducted 50% of the income towards his personal expenses. As per the principle of law settled in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (supra) the tribunal erred by calculating the multiplier on the age of the claimant because it is the mandate of law that multiplier is to be calculated on the basis of the age of deceased. Similarly in view of the principle of law settled in Pranay Sethi (supra) the respondent no.1-claimant is entitled to Rs.15,000/- on the conventional head of funeral expenses but against such entitlement, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.2000/- only. Similarly in view of the principle of law settled in Pranay Sethi (supra) the respondent no.1-claimant is entitled to Rs.15,000/- on the conventional head of funeral expenses but against such entitlement, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.2000/- only. In view of the settled principle of law as discussed above the impugned judgment and award dated 12.09.2008 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-1st Additional District Judge-Deoghar in Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Case No.23 of 1995 is modified as under:- The monthly income of the deceased having been assessed as Rs.45/- per day which comes out to Rs.1350/- per month and after deducting 50% towards his personal and living expenses in terms of the principle of law settled in the Sarla Verma (SMT) And Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation And Another (supra), his contribution to his family is of Rs.675/- per month i.e. Rs. 8,100/- per year and keeping in view the age of the deceased as 18 years the multiplier applicable would be 18 {vide paragraph – 61(vi) and (vii) of Pranay Sethi (supra) read with paragraph – 42 Sarla Verma of (supra)}. So, the claimant is entitled to Rs.1,45,800/- towards the compensation but as already indicated above besides the compensation, he is also entitled to Rs.13,000/- more towards the differential amount under the conventional head of funeral expenses. So adding Rs.13,000/- to the amount in total, he is entitled to Rs.1,58,800/-. Since, the respondent no.1-claimant is entitled to Rs.50,000/- towards interim compensation, he is entitled to receive Rs. 1,08,800/- more from the appellant-opposite party no.3-Oriental Insurance Company. Perusal of the order dated 04.11.2010 reveals that the execution of the award was stayed on the condition that the appellant will deposit 50% of the awarded amount in the trial court to be disbursed to the claimant-respondent against the solvent security. 12. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the simple interest awarded at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition to the actual date of payment appears to be proper. 13. In view of the discussions made above, the appellant-opposite party no.3-Oriental Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs. 12. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the simple interest awarded at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition to the actual date of payment appears to be proper. 13. In view of the discussions made above, the appellant-opposite party no.3-Oriental Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs. 1,08,800/- along with simple interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition to the date of actual payment less the statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the insurance company vide challan dated 25.02.2009 in this Court and less the amount if any deposited by the Insurance Company in terms of the order dated 04.11.2010 passed in this appeal to the respondent no.1-claimant within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this Judgment by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company appearing in record in this appeal. 14. Let a copy of this Judgment be supplied to the learned counsel for the appellant appearing in record for necessary compliance and a copy of this Judgment be also sent to the learned Tribunal forthwith. 15. Registry is directed to send the said statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellant in this Court with this appeal to the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-1st Additional District Judge-Deoghar in proper mode to be paid to the respondent no.1-claimant on proper identification. 16. In the result, this appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid modification.