The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation in cases of motor vehicle accidents, including the assessment of the deceased's income and personal expenses.

( 1 ) THIS M. F. A. is taken up for final disposal with the consent of parties.

( 2 ) ONE Chikkamarappa the deceased (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') died on 9. 12. 96 at 11. 45 a. m. The deceased was standing in front of the shop of one chowdappa near Bestamaranahalli on anekal-Rajamaranahalli Road, a Matador no. KA-02-4089 of the respondent No. 1 insured with the respondent No. 2 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased as a result of which the deceased died on the spot. The appellant No. 1 is the mother of the deceased. The appellant No. 2 is the brother of the deceased.

( 3 ) THE Tribunal held that there was rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of Matador and came to the conclusion that the accident occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle that was insured with the respondent No. 2. I have no hesitation in affirming the finding of the Tribunal regarding the rash and negligent act of the driver.

( 4 ) WITH respect to the compensation, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 72,000 under the following heads: rs. 54,000 towards loss of dependency; rs. 10,000 towards the loss of love and affection; and Rs. 8,000 towards funeral and other expenses.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submitted that the compensation awarded was totally inadequate. It was submitted at the Bar that the deceased was working as a brick manufacturer and was earning rs. 3,000 p. m. The Tribunal came to an erroneous conclusion that the deceased was a coolie and determined his income at Rs. 30 per day or Rs. 900 p. m. It was further submitted that the Tribunal was in error in deducting 50 per cent of the income towards personal expenses. It was submitted that the people in rural areas do not spend so much on themselves and, therefore, savings that are greater, which the claimants would be entitled to.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants relied on a Division Bench judgment of this court in Lakshman v. Susheela Chand choudhary, 1996 ACJ 1265 (Karnataka), wherein this court held that in respect of bachelors living in rural areas it would be appropriate to deduct one-third towards personal expenses since their expenses will be less than those people residing in urban areas.

( 7 ) THIS court held at para 6 in the above judgment as follows:"mr. Abdul Khader, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company, has submitted that this court in several decisions has observed that normally bachelors spend more on themselves and, therefore, 50 per cent of their earnings will have to be deducted towards personal expenses. This may be so in respect of bachelors living in cities where there are so many diversions for spending money; but not so in a small backward town where the deceased was living where the opportunity for spending money would be very much less. Therefore, we consider a deduction of one-third towards personal expenses would be appropriate. "

( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent no. 2 insurance company, Mr. O. Mahesh, submitted that the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the deceased was earning rs. 900 p. m. since there was no materials placed by the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,000 p. m. Therefore, the tribunal had come to the conclusion that the deceased was earning a minimum wage of Rs. 900 p. m. with respect to the labour in brick industries. There is nothing on record to show that the evidence given by the claimants can be disbelieved in toto. The Tribunal has not discussed why the monthly income of the deceased was reduced from Rs. 3,000 to Rs. 900. When there was no evidence brought out by the respondent and when there is no material in the cross-examination, it was not appropriate for the Tribunal to hold that the deceased would have earned only Rs. 900 p. m. Therefore, I hold that in the absence of any materials produced both by the claimants and the respondents the deceased would have earned a minimum sum of rs. 50 pe