Heard Mr. Ashok Priyadarshi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Though notice has been validly served on the claimant opposite party nos.1 to 4 but they have not chosen to appear before this Court. Again though served and having appeared through counsel, there is no representation on behalf of the opposite party nos.5 and 6.

2. This civil revision application is directed against the award passed by the learned District Judge-cum-Motor Vehicles Accident Claim Tribunal, Nalanda at Biharsharif dated 12.12.2007 in Claim Case No.95 of 2004, whereby the learned tribunal while allowing the claim has quantified the compensation at Rs.1,89,500/- payable to the claimants and issued directions for payment thereof.

3. Mr. Priyadarshi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Insurance Company has questioned the award only to the extent that the deductions towards the personal expenses as found in the second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) requiring a deduction by one-third on the computation of the compensation towards the personal expenses of the deceased has not been taken note of by the learned tribunal while making the award. Mr. Priyadarshi has candidly submitted that the petitioner does not question the award on any other aspect except that no deduction has been made towards personal expenses of the deceased, had she been alive.

4. The facts of the case is in a very narrow compass. The wife of opposite party no.1/mother of opposite party nos.2 to 4, was run over by a bus bearing registration no.BR-13P-2020 while she was crossing the road near Jagdamba Petrol Pump at Raitar in the district of Nalanda. The claimants which include the husband and sons of the deceased filed an application under section 166 of the Act setting up a claim of rupees two lacs by way of compensation together with 9% interest. The age of the deceased was stated to be 60 years and who was stated to be engaged in the business of sale of milk and curd for which the claimants stated that she had an earning of Rs.1500/- per month. The insurance company who are petitioner before this Court contested the matter and adduced oral and documentary evidence which included investigation report proved by the solitary witness led by the insurance company.

5. The learned tribunal having deliberated upon the rival contentions found the claim admissible and while accepting the income of the deceased to be Rs.1500/- per month which comes to Rs.18,000/- per annum, the tribunal by applying the multiplier of 10 computed the compensation amount at Rs.1,80,000/-. In addition to the compensation, an amount of Rs.5,000/- was awarded towards loss of consortium, Rs. 2,500/- towards the loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and thus the total compensation came to Rs.1,89,5000/-. The claimants were further found entitled to interest at the rate of 9% which was to be calculated from the date of filing of the application which was 17.12.2004 until the date of its recovery.

6. On query, Mr. Priyadarshi has informed that except for an amount of Rs.50,000/- paid under section 140 of the Act as also recorded in the award impugned, no other payment has been made. It is the contention of Mr. Priyadarshi with reference to a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2009)6 SCC 121 (Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation) that the tribunal has erred in not deducting any amount towards personal expenses in terms of the statutory requirement provided under the Second Schedule to the Act and which deductions are necessarily to be made as upheld by the Supreme Court. Mr. Priyadarshi has relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court made in paragraphs 18 and 25 to 32 of the judgment rendered in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) to submit that the circumstances as set forth in the judgment would be relevant for the consideration on the issue.

7. From the pleadings and arguments advanced by learned counsel it