JUDGMENT : P.VADAMALAI, J. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed challenging the Award, dated30.07.2020 passed in M.C.O.P.No.704 of 2016 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Sub Court dealing with MCOP Cases, Tirunelveli. 2. The 3rd respondent in M.C.O.P.No.704 of 2016 is the appellant herein. The respondents 1 to 5 are the petitioners/claimants and the respondents 6 to 9 are the respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5 in M.C.O.P.No.704 of 2016. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties as arrayed in M.C.O.P.No.704 of 2016 are adopted hereunder. 4.The brief facts of the case: On 16.05.2014 at about 12.30 p.m., the deceased Kattlingam was travelling in the 1 st respondent’s Indica car bearing registration No.TN 69 AA 8411 from Trichy to Thirupathi. The said car was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner near Ramakrishna Polytechnic at Perambalur on Trichy to Chennai NH Road and hit against the rear portion of the Eicher Mini lorry bearing registration No.TN 39 AU 9912 belongs to the 4 th respondent.Due to the impact, the deceased Kattlingam sustained multiple fatal injuries and died on the spot. The accident took place due to the sole rash and negligent act of the 1 st respondent. The deceased Kattlingam was a bachelor who was aged 31 years. He was working as an advocate clerk and was earning Rs.25,000/- p.m. The petitioners were dependent on the income of the deceased Kattlingam. An FIR in Crime No.320 of 2014 U/s.279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC was registered against the driver of the 1 st respondent by Perambalur Police Station. The car of the 1 st respondent was insured with the 3 rd respondent. The 4 th respondent’s Eicher Mini lorry was insured with the 5 th respondent. Hence, the petitioners filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. 5. The 3 rd respondent/TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., objected to the claim petition and contended that the accident took place due to the negligent driving of the 4 th respondent’s Eicher Mini lorry. The 1 st respondent was not responsible for the accident. So, the 3 rd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners/claimants. 6. The 5 th respondent/Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., objected to the claim petition and submitted that the accident happened only due to rash and negligent driving of the 1 st respondent’s car. The 1 st respondent was not responsible for the accident. So, the 3 rd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners/claimants. 6. The 5 th respondent/Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., objected to the claim petition and submitted that the accident happened only due to rash and negligent driving of the 1 st respondent’s car. The 4 th respondent’s Mini Lorry was not responsible for the accident. Hence, this respondent, being the insurer of the 4 th respondent, is not liable for any compensation. 7. The respondents 1, 2 and 4 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. 8. Before the Tribunal, both sides adduced oral and documentary evidence. The petitioners examined two witnesses as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked five documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5. On the respondents' side, no witness was examined and no exhibit was marked. 9. After hearing both sides and after considering the evidence, the Tribunal has held negligence on the driver of the 1 st respondent’s Indica car. The Tribunal has arrived at a total compensation of Rs.16,82,800/- and directed the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company to pay the amount to the petitioners with interest by its order, dated 30.07.2020. 10. Aggrieved by the said award, the 3rd respondent/TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 11. Heard both sides and perused the records in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. There is no dispute between both sides that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1 st respondent’s driver. The only dispute is with regard to the income of the deceased and the deduction of his personal expenses, as the deceased was a bachelor at the time of death. 12. The learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent/TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., has contended that the petitioners have not produced any income certificate, though they claimed that the deceased was working as an advocate clerk. Hence, the notional income has to be fixed at Rs.7,500/- p.m, but the Tribunal has erred in fixing the notional income at Rs.9,000/- p.m. The deceased died as a bachelor. So, as per the settled legal proposition, 50% deduction of income towards personal expenses shall be taken into account. The Tribunal has deducted only 1/3 rd of the income towards personal expenses. In the light of these aspects, the award passed by the Tribunal has to be modified. So, as per the settled legal proposition, 50% deduction of income towards personal expenses shall be taken into account. The Tribunal has deducted only 1/3 rd of the income towards personal expenses. In the light of these aspects, the award passed by the Tribunal has to be modified. In other respects, there is no serious objection. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the deceased Kattilingam was working as an advocate clerk. The deceased was earning Rs.25,000/- p.m. But, the Tribunal has fixed the notional income of Rs.9,000/- p.m., which is meagre, and the same has to be fixed excessively. The Division Bench of this Court in the Andal case has observed, considering the judgment of the Apex Court in the Syed Sadiq case , that while fixing the notional income, the Tribunal has to adopt the cost of inflation index for the subsequent years. Following the said legal position, this Court has fixed the notional income at Rs.13,300/- for a deceased who died in the year 2016, quoting the order in C.M.A.No.3053 of 2021, dated 23.01.2024 and hence the petitioners prayed to enhance the notional income in this case to Rs.12,093/- p.m. The Tribunal has correctly added future prospects as 40%and has correctly taken the multiplier as 16'. 14. Considered both sides arguments and perused records of the case.There is no dispute by both sides that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1 st respondent’s driver and that the deceased was a bachelor who was aged 31 years at the time of the accident. The only dispute is regarding the income of the deceased and the quantum of award under the head of loss of love and affection. 15. On hearing both sides and on perusal of records, it is clear that the petitioners state that the deceased was working as an advocate clerk and the same was not strongly disputed by the respondents. Admittedly, the petitioners have not produced any income proof. Moreover, the petitioners have not preferred any cross appeal seeking enhancement of the award. Therefore, in the absence of any income proof and considering the age of the deceased, who was a bachelor, the Tribunal fixed the notional income as Rs.9,000/- p.m. This fixation of notional income is correct in view of settled positions in the Syed Sadiq case and also the Andal case. Therefore, in the absence of any income proof and considering the age of the deceased, who was a bachelor, the Tribunal fixed the notional income as Rs.9,000/- p.m. This fixation of notional income is correct in view of settled positions in the Syed Sadiq case and also the Andal case. In view of the Sarala Verma and Pranay Sethi cases , 40% future prospects have been fixed by the Tribunal, which is upheld. Applying the same, the income of the deceased after adding 40% prospects is Rs.12,600/- (Rs.9,000/- +Rs.3,600/- (40% of Rs.9,000/-). 16. The deceased was a bachelor. At this juncture, the 3 rd respondent/TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., has objected that the Tribunal has deducted only 1/3 rd of the income towards personal expenses. As per the Sarala Verma and Pranay Sethi cases , 50% has to be deducted towards the own expenses of a deceased bachelor. For this, both sides consented to a deduction of 50% during the course of the arguments. Therefore, after deducting 50% for the personal expenses of the deceased, the monthly loss of income of the dependents of the deceased would be Rs.6,300/- p.m. (Rs.12,600/- x 1/2). Considering the age of the deceased as 31 years, the multiplier 16' is correct as per the Sarala Verma case. Therefore, the loss of income is Rs.6,300 x 12 x 16 = Rs.12,09,600/-. 17. While considering the loss of consortium, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- to all the petitioners. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for both sides. Similarly, it is not disputed by both sides in respect of the sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. 18. Thus, this Court holds that the total compensation payable to the petitioners/claimants in M.C.O.P.No.704 of 2016 as follows: Therefore, the petitioners 1 to 5/claimants in M.C.O.P.No.704 of 2016 are entitled to Rs.12,79,600/-. Therefore, to that extent, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is set aside and modified as Rs.12,79,600/-. In respect of apportionment, the first petitioner/1 st claimant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.8,79,600/-, and the petitioners 2 to 5/claimants 2 to 5 are entitled to receive a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with proportionate interests and costs. 19. In the result, (i)This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs. In respect of apportionment, the first petitioner/1 st claimant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.8,79,600/-, and the petitioners 2 to 5/claimants 2 to 5 are entitled to receive a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with proportionate interests and costs. 19. In the result, (i)This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs. (ii)The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and reduced from Rs.16,82,800/- to Rs.12,79,600/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand Six Hundred only) and to that effect, the 3 rd respondent/Insurance Company is directed to pay the reduced compensation in M.C.O.P.No.704 of 2016 to the petitioners within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order with proportionate interest and cost. (iii)The 1 st petitioner/1 st claimant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.8,79,600/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand and Six Hundred only) and the petitioners 2 to 5/claimants 2 to 5 are entitled to receive a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) each with proportionate interests and costs. (iv)On such deposit being made by the 3 rd respondent/Insurance Company, the petitioners 1 to 5/claimants are permitted to withdraw their entire share amount as apportioned by this Court with proportionate interest and cost by filing appropriate application before the Tribunal, less the amount already withdrawn if any. (v)If the entire amount is deposited by the appellant/Insurance Company in this case either before the Tribunal or before this Court, the difference between the award of the Tribunal and the modified award of this Court with interest shall be ordered to be withdrawn by the appellant/Insurance Company on appropriate application. (vi)Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.