JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Mehrotra learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Shirish Srivastava, leaned Advocate holding brief of Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui learned counsel for the claimants-respondents.

2. The challenge to the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 7, Kanpur Nagar is confined to the issue of quantum of compensation, i.e. the alleged illegality in the computation made by the Tribunal. The issue no. 5 in the decision of the Tribunal under challenge is on the quantum of compensation.

3. The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company are two folds: the first is that the Tribunal had wrongly made deduction to the extent of 1/4th for personal expenses of deceased in ignorance of U.P. Motor Vehicles (Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 2011 (In short as “the Rules, 2011) which provides in Rule 220-A (3) that for the purposes of calculation of number of family members as per Clauses (ii) and (iii) of the said sub-rule (2), i.e. for the deduction towards personal and living expenses of a married person (deceased), a minor dependent will be counted as half.

The contention is that as the deceased was surviv