JUDGMENT : RAVI NATH TILHARI, J. 1. Heard Sri Gudi Srinivasu, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-United India Insurance Company Ltd and Sri L.J. Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants/ respondents 1 and 2. 2. The claimants/respondents 1 and 2 filed M.V.O.P. No. 194 of 2020 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short ‘the M.V. Act’) claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for the death of Poura Sreevidhya (in short ‘the deceased’) in a motor vehicle accident, which occurred on 17.01.2020 at 4.30 p.m. near ECO Park, R.K. Valley to Vempally main road of Vempalli Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. 3. The claim was partly allowed for a sum of Rs.48,17,788/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realization against the present appellant-insurance company and the 3rd respondent-owner, vide order dated 28.02.2024 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kadapa (in short ‘the Tribunal’). 4. The claim petition was filed inter-alia on the averments that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing No. AP 31 AZ 0477 driven by the 4th respondent herein, owned by the 3rd respondent and insured with the appellant. The deceased was aged about 25 years. She was working as Clerk in the State Bank of India, R.K. Valley Branch, Vempalli Mandal and was earning Rs.30,000/- p.m. 5. The respondents 3 and 4 herein, before the Tribunal remained ex-parte. 6. The appellant-insurance company filed written statement, inter alia denying the material averments of the petition and submitting that the claimants be put to strict proof of the factum of accident, involvement of the offending vehicle, existence of the valid driving licence and of the insurance policy etc. The amount of compensation as claimed was said to be highly excessive. 7. The Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident is caused due to rash and negligent driving of driver (R2) of car bearing No. AP 31 AZ 0477 causing death of deceased? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, from whom and to what amount? 3. To what relief? 8. The claimants examined the 1st respondent as PW-1. One Y. Ramu, eye witness of the accident, who was also injured was examined as PW-2. 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, from whom and to what amount? 3. To what relief? 8. The claimants examined the 1st respondent as PW-1. One Y. Ramu, eye witness of the accident, who was also injured was examined as PW-2. One P. Kanakadurgaiah, the employer of the deceased was examined as PW-3 and Ex.A8 was marked through him. Ex.A8 is the appointment letter of the deceased. Besides other documentary evidence were also marked as mentioned in the above order of the Tribunal, Exs.A1 to A7. 9. On behalf of insurance company, no witness was examined and no documents were marked. 10. The Tribunal recorded the findings that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car bearing No. AP 31 AZ 0477, in which the deceased received multiple injuries and succumbed to those injuries. The Tribunal held that the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant-insurance company and the policy was subsisting on the date of the accident. 11. On the point of compensation, the Tribunal recorded that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.23,347/- after all the deductions as per Ex.A7-pay slip. The age of the deceased was recorded as 26 years 6 months 10 days i.e. in the age group of 26-30 years. It awarded 50% as future prospects being permanent employee of the State Bank of India as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . It applied the multiplier ‘17’. On the point of Personal expenses, the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd. Towards loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- was awarded to the widowed mother of the deceased and Rs.15,000/- was awarded towards funeral expenses. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant raised the only submission that the deceased being a bachelor, the Tribunal legally erred in deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. He submitted that in view of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 said deduction should have been 50% i.e. one half. 13. No other submission was advanced. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted that the deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased is justified applying Sarla Verma (supra) and it cannot be one half. 13. No other submission was advanced. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted that the deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased is justified applying Sarla Verma (supra) and it cannot be one half. He submitted that the widowed mother and the sister of the deceased were dependents on the deceased since her father was not alive. 15. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material on record. 16. The only point that arises for consideration is as follows: “Whether the deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased being bachelor is justified or it should be one half in the light of the submissions advanced?” 17. On the point of deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased, the law is well settled. 18. In Sarla Verma (supra), the question No. (ii) framed therein was as under: “(ii) Whether the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be less than one-fourth (1/4th) as contended by the appellants, or should be one-third (1/3rd) as contended by the respondents?” 19. In Sarla Verma (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court answered the said question in Paras 14 and 15, which are as follows: “14. 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, the general practice is to apply standardized 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 dependant family members is 4 to 6 and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six. 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% 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% 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 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 dependant 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% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependant 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.” 20. In Pranay Sethi (supra), the Constitutional Bench in Para No. 42 observed and held as under: “42. In our view, the standards fixed by this Court in Sarla Verma on the aspect of deduction for personal living expenses in Paras 30, 31 and 32 must ordinarily be followed unless a case for departure in the circumstances noted in the preceding paragraph is made out.” 21. From the aforesaid judgment, it is evident that where the deceased is married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be 1/3rd. Where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, 1/4th, where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6 and 1/5th where the number of dependant family members exceed six. Where the deceased is a bachelor, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses. Where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, 1/4th, where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6 and 1/5th where the number of dependant family members exceed six. Where the deceased is a bachelor, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses. 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 dependant on the father. Thus, even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother will be considered as dependent and 50% will be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where 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. 22. So with respect to the deceased being bachelor, the law is settled that in case of mother being the dependent, deduction should be 50%. The siblings being dependent, the deduction towards personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third. So it is not that in all the cases of the deceased being bachelor, only one half is to be deducted. It can also be one-third. 23. The mother of the deceased was widowed mother. The sister of the deceased has also been held by the Tribunal as dependent on the deceased since her father was not alive. On the point that, the widowed mother and the sister of the deceased were dependent on the deceased, the finding has not been challenged before us. 24. The appellant-insurance company did not lead any evidence to show that the sister, the claimant/2nd respondent herein, was an earning member or was not dependent upon the deceased. 25. Consequently, we are of the view that there are two dependents on the deceased and not the widowed mother alone. 24. The appellant-insurance company did not lead any evidence to show that the sister, the claimant/2nd respondent herein, was an earning member or was not dependent upon the deceased. 25. Consequently, we are of the view that there are two dependents on the deceased and not the widowed mother alone. The Tribunal did not commit any illegality in deducting one-third (1/3rd) towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. 26. In the result, we hold that the deduction of one-third towards personal expenses of the deceased cannot be faulted. There is no merit in the appeal. 27. The Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. 28. The appellant-insurance company shall deposit the amount of compensation in terms of the award before the Tribunal after adjusting the amount already paid/deposited pursuant to the interim order dated 12.07.2024 as also the statutory deposit with interest thereon as awarded by the Tribunal, within a period of two months. The claimants/respondents 1 and 2 shall be permitted to withdraw the amount in terms of the award. 29. Costs throughout is awarded to the claimants/respondents 1 and 2. 30. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.