JUDGMENT Mr. Rajan Gupta, J.: - This order shall dispose of above mentioned two appeals directed against award of tribunal granting compensation to the tune of Rs.3,25,000/- and Rs.5,84,215/- respectively. 2. The accident occurred on 5.3.2007 in which three persons namely Ramesh, Sukhwinder and Bhagwan Dev died. Separate claim petitions were preferred by parents of Sukhwinder and Ramesh. Same were disposed of by a common award which is assailed before this court. After examining the evidence tribunal came to the conclusion that accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the offending vehicle i.e. truck bearing registration No.RJ-32G-2988. 3. Grouse of appellants before this court is that compensation as assessed, is on the lower side. Future prospects of increments in annual income have not been taken into consideration. Reliance has been placed on judgment reported as Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & others, [2012(3) Law Herald (SC) 2035 : 2012(3) Law Herald (P&H) (SC) 1897] : (2012) 6 Supreme Court Cases 421. 4. Plea has been opposed by learned counsel appearing for insurance company. He submits that claim was preferred in both the cases by parents of the deceased. Thus, half of the income assessed had to be deducted as expenses for personal use of the deceased as laid down in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC, [2009(3) Law Herald (SC) 2107 : 2010(1) Law Herald (Acc.) (SC) 65] : (2009) 6 SCC 121. He further contends that in case 30% increase in annual income is taken into account and dependency is assessed in accordance with Sarla Verma’s case (supra), appellants would be entitled to lower compensation than that granted by the tribunal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. 6. Age of Sukhwinder at the time of death was assessed as 25 years and that of Ramesh as 24 years. As the claimants failed to lead any oral or documentary evidence to prove income of the deceased, their notional income was taken as Rs.3500/- per month. After deducting 1/3rd of the amount as expenses for personal use, appropriate multiplier was applied. In case of deceased Sukhwinder Singh, compensation was assessed as Rs.3,25,000/- and in case of Ramesh compensation was assessed as Rs.3,84,215/-. After deducting 1/3rd of the amount as expenses for personal use, appropriate multiplier was applied. In case of deceased Sukhwinder Singh, compensation was assessed as Rs.3,25,000/- and in case of Ramesh compensation was assessed as Rs.3,84,215/-. Limited plea raised before this court is regarding computation of compensation amount as future prospectus of deceased have not been taken into consideration. Apart from the fact that no evidence was led before the tribunal regarding income of deceased Sukhwinder or Ramesh, there is nothing to show that they were gainfully employed. Even if this court accepts the plea of the claimants to allow 30% increase in annual income as laid down in Santosh Devi’s case (supra), it appears that 50% deduction would have to be made in view of ratio of Sarla Verma’s case (supra), both deceased being unmarried. Computed in this manner compensation payable to claimants would actually reduce. By allowing 30% increase in case of Sukhwinder Singh, his annual income comes to Rs.54,600/-. After deduction of 50% as expenses for personal use, compensation would come to Rs.3,00,300/- (27300 x 11). Likewise, in case of deceased Ramesh it would come to Rs.3,54,900/- (27300 x 13). 7. Under the circumstances, this court is of the considered view that no interference in appellate jurisdiction is required. The award deserves to be upheld. In the absence of appeal by insurance company, this court is not inclined to reduce the compensation either. Both appeals are, thus, dismissed.