1. This appeal has been filed by the third respondent insurer in OP(MV) No.1158 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants. The respondents 1 to 8 herein were the petitioners before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimants before the tribunal was that on 06.12.2013 at about 5 pm, while the deceased was walking along the extreme side of Mavoor - Medical College road, a motor cycle bearing Reg.No. KL - 11N / 9785 driven by the second respondent and owned by the first respondent hit him in a rash and negligent manner whereby he sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The claimants, being the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-.

3. Respondents 1 and 2, owner and driver of the offending vehicle respectively, remained ex parte before the tribunal. The third respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A7 were marked on the side of the claimants. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced from the side of the third respondent. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident took place on account of the negligence on the side of the second respondent and awarded a sum of Rs.8,77,300/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization against the third respondent being the insurer. The respondent insurer has come up in appeal, alleging that the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is excessive.

4. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant / third respondent insurer and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 8 / claimants.

5. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant insurer challenges the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal mainly under the following heads:
5.1. Loss of dependency: The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that for awarding compensation under the head 'loss of dependency', the tribunal deducted 1/3 instead of 1/2, considering the wife of the deceased as the sole dependent. The claimants 2 to 8, being major sons and daughters, did not plead and prove that they were dependents of the deceased and hence, the deduction of 1/3 by the tribunal was erroneous. Learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Deep Shikha and another v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and others, 2025 INSC 675 and submitted that in the afore judgment, the apex court had deducted one half towards personal expenses in the afore case though the claimants were major daughters of the deceased.
Learned counsel appearing for the claimants, on the other hand, submitted that there were a total of eight dependents for the deceased Beeran including his wife and seven children and hence the deduction of one - third by the tribunal towards personal expenses was correct. Learned counsel for the claimants relied on the judgments of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Martin Xavier, 2024 (6) KLT 183 wherein this Court had deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses though there was only one claimant.
I have considered the rival contentions raised on both sides.
In the present case, there are 8 legal heirs, including the wife with sons and daughters aged between 33-49 years. No oral evidence has been adduced to prove that the sons and daughters were dependents on the deceased. In order to award compensation under the head 'loss of dependency', the principles laid down by the apex court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (6) SCC 121, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (16) SCC 680 and Reshma Kumari and Others v. Madan Mohan and another, 2013 (9) SCC 65 has to be followed.
The apex court in Sarla Ver