DEVI PRASAD SINGH and YOGESH CHANDRA GUPTA, JJ.—List has been revised. Learned Counsel for the appellant is present. None appears for the respondents.2. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and perusal the record.3. On 21.10.2007 at 8.15 p.m., one Manoj Kumar was going to his residence on motorcycle No. U.P.-35-E-9709. Manoj was driving the motorcycle and deceased Vikas was pillion rider. When the motorcycle reached near Super House Factory, a mini truck bearing No. U.P.-78-A.T.-7468 coming from opposite direction hit the motorcycle. The mini truck was being driven rashly and negligently. Consequent upon which the deceased fallen down from the motorcycle and succumbed to his injuries on the spot.By the impugned order the Tribunal has awarded compensation to the claimant under section 166 Motor Vehicles Act.The Tribunal found that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the mini truck. The issue regarding liability in pay compensation was decided against the appellant, hence the present appeal.4. Evidence was led by the claimant and it was established that accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of mini truck No. U.P.-78-A.T-7468. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the deceased was aged about 13 years and was earning Rs. 4000/- per month but in absence of any evidence with regard to income of the deceased as Rs. 4000/- per month, the Tribunal assessed his monthly income as Rs. 3000/- and after deducting 1/3 out of his income the Tribunal awarded Rs. 24,000/- per annum as income of the deceased.5. While assailing the impugned award, learned Counsel for the appellant argued that since the age of the deceased was 13 years the notional income assessed by the Tribunal is excessive and deduction of 1/3 out of annual income is contrary to the provisions of Schedule-2 of the Motor Vehicles Act.So far as the assessment of income is concerned, undoubtedly the notional income as given in 2nd Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1994 is Rs. 15,000/- per annum but in the recent judgment in Laxmi Devi and others v. Mohammad Tabbar and others, 2008 (2) TAC 394 (SC) their lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court held that earning of an unskilled man depends upon the facts of each case. The notional in-come given in Motor Vehicle Act is very old one as its rules were framed a decade back and it became inapplicable. The notional in-come given in Motor Vehicle Act is very old one as its rules were framed a decade back and it became inapplicable. In the present case, as due to inflation, there is rise in prices of essential commodities, the notional income given in Schedule-2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1994 has lost its utility. Hon'ble Supreme Court dealing with the issue of notional income, has observed that in case of unskilled person, the notional income for the purpose of determination of compensation, the Court should take per day income as Rs. 100/- and not less than it. In the case of Laxmi Devi (supra), a number of judgments have been relied upon and the notional income of a unskilled person was held to be as Rs. 3000/- per month.6. In view of above the finding of Tribunal, assessing the notional income of deceased as Rs. 36,000/- per annum, does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality.7. So far as the second limb of argument of learned Counsel for the appellant that deduction of 1/3 is not justified and there should have been 50% deduction, is concerned, we are of the view that this argument seems to be not sustainable. The reason being that in the present appeal the claim was that the deceased was an earning member of family and his monthly income was Rs. 4000/-. Accordingly statutory deduction of 1/3 as done by the Tribunal seems to be just and proper. The judgment and order of the Tribunal should be seen in reference to this context. In the present case the Tribunal deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses of the deceased as provided in 2nd Schedule of Motor Vehicle Act and this finding also does not suffer from any illegality. No other point was raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant while assailing the impugned judgment.8. Subject to above, the appeal fails and is dismissed.The appellant shall deposit remaining does within two months from today before the Tribunal the deposit made in this Court at the time of filing of appeal shall be remitted forthwith by the registry and Tribunal may proceed in terms of the award.Appeal Dismissed._____________