Prakash Shrivastava, J:

1. This appeal is filed by the Appellant/ Insurance Company under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 11th March, 2010 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ujjain in claim Case No.3/2007.

2. One Hokam alias Gudya had died in the road motor accident which had taken place on 28th September, 2006.Accordingly the dependents of the deceased filed claim petition before the Claims Tribunal.The Tribunal found that the deceased was aged about 22 years at the time of accident and his monthly income was र 3,000/ per month and after deducting one-third, the amount towards self expenses the Tribunal assessed the loss of dependency at the rate of र 2,000/- per month which comes to र 24,000/- and by applying multiplier of 18 the Tribunal awarded र 4,32,000/-.The Tribunal further awarded र 5,000/- for funeral expenses and र 2,000/- to the mother for the death of her son and र 5,000/- for loss of estate.Thus, the Tribunal awarded a sum of र 4,44,000/-alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till realization.

3. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail, such as how the accident occurred, negligence in driving the offending vehicle and the issue of liability who is liable to pay compensation.The Tribunal has already recorded the findings on these issues in favour of the Appellant.None of those findings have been assailed at the instance of the Respondents i.e.owner/driver/insurance Company by filing cross-appeal or cross-objection.Thus, it is not necessary to burden the order by dealing the facts on the said issues.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the deceased was bachelor, therefore, 1/2 should be deducted towards the self expenses.He further submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in applying the multiplier of 18.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the claimants supporting the award, submitted that no error has been committed by the Tribunal in passing the impugned award and there is no scope for interference by this Court.

6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.

7. It is not in dispute that at the time of accident, the deceased was a bachelor.Learned Counsel for the Appellant relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., reported in, 2009 A.C.J. 1298 : 2009 (2) T.A.C. 677, submitted that 1/2 should be deducted towards self expenses in the case of bachelor.Learned Counsel for the Respondents has also relied upon the same judgment in support of his submission that 1/3rd should be deducted for self expenses.In the present case, there are two dependents of the deceased namely, Sunderbai and Jyoti.The Appellant had adduced evidence before the Tribunal that Sunderbai was the divorced wife of her husband and was living on the income of the deceased.Jyoti is a minor aged about nine years.The Supreme Court, in the matter of Sarla Verma (supra) though has stated the general rule of deducting 1/2 towards the self expenses in the case of bachelor, but it has been mentioned in the said judgment that where the deceased had a widowed mother and number of non-earning brothers and sisters, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.

8. Considering the age and capacity of two dependents in the present case, it is found that the Tribunal has not committed any error in deducting one-third towards self expenses.

9. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has also challenged the multiplier which has been applied in the present case.The deceased at the time of accident, was aged 22 years.The minor sister who is found to be dependent of the deceased, is aged about 9 years and the age of the mother is 40 years.Therefore, considering the ages of these persons and keeping in vie

w the fact that the amount which has been awarded by the Tribunal on the other heads is quite inadequate and I do not find any reason to disturb the finding arrived at by the Tribunal in respect of multiplier and quantum of compensation. 10. Thus, no ground for interference is made out in this appeal.Consequently this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.There shall, however, be no order as to costs. JUNE504 Appeal dismissed.