MACApp. 99/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BP KATAKEY Heard Mr. Saikia, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Talukdar, lea rned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the award dated 31.7.20 07 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short the Tr ibunal) in MAC Case No. 96/2005 awarding a sum of Rs. 3,94,000/- as compensation payable for the death of the claimants/respondents’ son in a motor accident occ urred on 14.12.2004 arising out of the use of motor vehicle bearing registration No. WB-02J/5401 (TATA Indica Car), belonging to the present respondent No. 3. A further order for payment of interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of making the payment has been passe d. The learned Member also directed the appellant Insurance Company to satisfy t he award in view of the contract of insurance between the appellant Insurance Co mpany and the respondent No. 3, namely the owner of the offending vehicle. The appeal has been filed challenging the quantum after obtaining permission und er Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the Act) to contest the proceeding before the learned Tribunal on all the grounds available to the owne r apart from the grounds available to the Insurance Company under Section 149(2) of the Act. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased being a bachelor, 50% from the said amount ought to have been deducted while ascertai ning the annual loss of dependency. It has further been submitted that keeping i n view the age of the respondents/claimants i.e. 40 and 38 respectively, the lea rned Tribunal ought to have taken the multiplier of 15 instead of 16. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants supporting t he award passed has submitted that as the deceased apart from leaving behind bot h the parents left behind two other minor brothers who were dependent on the inc ome of the deceased, 1/3 is to be deducted from the income of the deceased and n ot 50% as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant. It has further bee n submitted that taking into account the age of the parents as well as the decea sed, 16 was the appropriate multiplier taken by the learned Tribunal, which requ ires no interference. It is, therefore, submitted that the award passed by the l earned Tribunal may not be interfered with. The appellant, as noticed above, has challenged the quantum of compensation as a warded on two grounds namely; non deduction of 2/3 from the income of the deceas ed while working out the loss of dependency and application of the wrong multipl ier i.e. 16 instead of 15. The factum of accident, death of the deceased arising out of the use of motor ve hicle, the monthly income of the deceased and the contract of insurance between the appellant as well as respondent No. 3, the owner of the offending vehicle, a re not in dispute. It appears from the impugned award dated 31.7.2007 passed by the learned Tribuna l that the monthly income of the deceased was found to be Rs. 3000/-. The learne d Tribunal deducted 1/3 from the said amount towards the expenditure that would have incurred had the deceased been alive and thereafter ascertained the annual loss of dependency at Rs. 24,000/- (Rs. 2000x12). The learned Tribunal has appli ed the multiplier of 16 and worked out the amount of compensation at Rs.3,84,000 /- to which funeral expenses of Rs. 10,000/- was added totaling Rs. 3,94,000/-. It appears from the evidence of the claimant/witness No. 1 Md. Dilbar Ali i.e. r espondent No. 1 that the deceased apart from leaving behind both the parents als o left behind two minor brothers who were dependent on the income of the decease d. The Apex Court in Sarala Verma (Smt.) & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & O rs. (2009) 6 SCC 121 has opined that where the deceased was bachelor and the cla imants were parents, 50% is to be deducted as personal and living expenses of th e deceased. It has further been opined that, however, where the family members o f the bachelor is large and the dependent on the income of the deceased, his per sonal and living expenses may be restricted to 1/3 and contribution to the famil y would be taken as 2/3. In the instant case, as noticed above, there is the evidence of the respondent N o. 2 that the deceased apart from leaving behind both the parents also left behi nd two minor brothers who were dependent on his income. That being the position the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality in deducting 1/3 so as to ascertain the annual loss of dependency. The learned Tribunal has applied 16 as multiplier. Keeping in view the age of both the parents who were 40 and 38 respectively as w ell as the age of the deceased being 20 years, in my considered opinion, the app ropriate multiplier which ought to have been applied by the learned Tribunal is 15. In view of the above the respondent would be entitled to Rs. 3,60,000/- (Rs. 200 0x12x15) to which an amount of Rs. 5000/- as loss of estate and further Rs. 5000 /- towards the funeral expenses are to be added. The respondents/claimants there fore, would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,70,000/-/ The respondent claimant shall also be entitled to 6% interest per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of making payment. The award passed is accordingly modified as indicated above. In the instant case apart from Rs. 50,000/-, which has been paid towards no faul t liability a further sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- has also been deposited before the R egistry of this Court on 13.11.2009 pursuant to the interim order dated 22.9.200 9 passed in Misc. Case No. 2636/2009. The said amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- has been withdrawn by the respondents/claimants on 7.12.2009 pursuant to the aforesaid o rder passed in the aforesaid Misc. Case. The respondents/claimants thus have wit hdrawn Rs. 4,00,000/-, which includes the no fault liability of Rs. 50,000/-. The Insurance Company shall now deposit the amount payable towards the interest with effect from the date of filing the claim petition till 13.11.2009 with the learned Tribunal within 45 days from today. On such deposit the amount shall be released to the respondents/claimants by account payee cheque in their joint nam es. The appellant shall be at liberty to withdraw the statutory deposit made before the Registry of this Court. The appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. No cost.