ORDER

This common order will dispose off misc. appeal No. 116/2009, MA No.114/2009 and MA No. 115/2009. All the three appeals have arisen from the common award dated 28.4.2008 passed in MCC No.99/2007, MCC No.125/2007 and MCC No.138/2007.

2. Brief facts required for the disposal of these appeals are that on 25.10.2006 at about 11:00 PM in night deceased Avinash @ Ankit along with his companions Anil and Rajesh Malviya was going on his moped M80 No. MP05-A1584 from Suhagpur to Betul. He was driving his vehicle diligently and carefully. Near about Verma Petrol Pump on NH 69 truck/Tralla No. MH27 X684 driven respondent/driver rashly and negligently dashed the moped. Avinash and Rajesh Malviya died on the spot and Anil was seriously injured.

3. Deceased Avinash was of 24 years of age at the time of accident and was earning Rs.6,000/- from tailoring work and Rs.2,000/- from selling milk. Thus earning total income of Rs.8,000/-. He was bachelor and taking care of his parents. Deceased Rajesh Malviya was 25 years of age on the date of accident and was earning Rs.5,000/- from furniture work. He was taking care of his parents and younger brother. Injured Anil was doing work of barber and earning Rs.3,000/- and he was earning additional income of Rs.3,000/- thus he was earning total amount of Rs.6,000/- per month. On these ground, claim petitions were filed for compensation.

4 . Claim petitions were opposed by the insurance company and driver and owner of offending vehicle on the ground that non applicant no. 1 driver of truck/Tralla was having a forged license. He was plying the vehicle in violations of terms and conditions of insurance policy. The accident occurred due to rashness and negligence of moped driver Avinash. He was not having any driving license. In such circumstances, the accident was result of contributory negligence. Insurance company is not liable for payment of any compensation for breach of terms and conditions of the policy. On the above pleadings issues were framed and decided on the basis of evidence adduced and by the impugned award claim petitions were disposed off.

5. Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that income of the deceased has been assessed on higher side. There was no evidence available on record that they were skilled labourers. Since the deceased were bachelors therefore, as per the directions contained in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121. The deduction in the head of personal expenses should have been taken as 50% but learned Claims Tribunal in violations of the directions contained in Sarla Verma (Supra) deducted only 1/3 of income in personal expenses which is erroneous. On these contentions learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company prayed for reducing the award amount by allowing the appeal.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submits that award has been passed on the basis of evidence available on record. No factual or legal infirmity is in the award therefore, appeals may be dismissed as devoid of any substance.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. MA No. 116/2009, learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company has assailed the award on the ground that learned claims tribunal has deducted 1/3 amount in personal expenses head despite the fact that the deceased was bachelor. In such cases, as per the directions contained in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 paragraph 30 to 32 in case of death of bachelor, 50% would be treated as personal and living expenses and 50% of the income as the contribution of the family. In the light of the above direction, learned claims tribunal has committed error in deducting only 1/3 of the income in the head of personal expenses, whereas no evidence was led indicating any special circumstance regarding dependency of the c