Hon'ble SINGH, J.—Heard learned counsel for appellant-company. 2. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance-company is that the learned Tribunal has erred in quantifying the damages on account of loss of income on the basis of the notional income of Rs.3000/- per month, despite there being no cogent evidence to that effect. 3. So far as the aforesaid submission is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Devi and Ors. vs. Mohammad Tabbar and Anr., reported in 2008 ACJ 1488 = 2008(4) RLW 3370 (SC) has approved the taking of notional income in the case of unskilled labourer to be Rs.100/- per day (36000 annually) and computed the amount of compensation under the head of loss of income on that basis. As such, I find no error in the award passed by the learned Tribunal by taking the notional income of the deceased as Rs.3000/- per month. 4. Learned counsel next contended that instead of deducting 1/3rd of the income towards personal expenses, the learned Tribunal has deducted merely an amount of Rs.600/-, out of the monthly income of Rs.3000/-. 5. So far as the aforesaid contention is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corp. and another, reported in 2009 (2) ACCD 924 (SC) = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC) has held that deduction on account of personal income would depend upon the number of dependents in each cases. In the present case the depen-dents are more than nearly nine in number and as such in that case as per judgment in Sarla Verma and Ors. (supra) deduction of 1/5th has been prescribed in case there are six or more dependents. Accordingly, Rs.600/- being 1/5th of the amount of Rs.3000/- no fault can be found with the judgment of the learned Tribunal on this account also. 6. There is no infirmity in the award passed by the learned Tribunal. 7. Consequently, the miscellaneous appeal fails and is, hereby, dismissed summarily. 8. The stay application also stands dismissed.