Judgment :- 1. The insurer, disputes the award of the Tribunal on the question of negligence as well as quantum. 2. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the Tribunal took the income Rs.3,000/-p.m, as stated by the petitioner. However, also added Rs.2,000/-p.m, and made it Rs.5,000/- p.m. This is not warranted and this has resulted in granting them excess compensation. There is no written proof even for the said Rs.3,000/- p.m. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants would contend that the negligence on the part of the driver of the van insured with the appellant has been clearly established. Further, the Tribunal had taken the income correctly and inasmuch as the deceased has supported his family consisting of 5 persons, the deduction should have been 1/4th, however, the Tribunal had deducted 1/3rd. 4. First, we shall see the negligence question. On 30.05.1999, at about 5.15 p.m., deceased Rayamuthu @ Rayappan when driven the van TN-45-V-8722 from east to west, the van TN-28-X-8166 belonging to the 6th respondent came behind him and dashed against Rayappan's van. The F.I.R. has been lodged by P.W.3-Kumar. P.W.3 has been examined as eye witness. P.W.3 had stated that the deceased was driving the van on the left side corner, the driver of the 6th respondent came driven the van behind the Rayappan's van in a rash and negligent manner and it hit on the preceeding van, thus, the accident took place. The same also has been stated in Ex.P1 F.I.R. As against this positive evidence, there is no contra evidence. In the circumstances, the Tribunal has found negligence on the part of the driver of the van belonging to the 6th respondent. In the circumstances, we concur with this finding. 5. Now, we shall see the quantum aspect. At the time of accident, the deceased was 26 years old. He is a driver.(See Ex.P5 driving licence). The Tribunal took Rs.3,000/-as his monthly income. It had also added Rs.2,000/-towards loss of future prospects and made it Rs.5,000/- per month. Totally, awarded Rs.8,02,000/-. 6. It is a fact that the deceased was a driver. Of course, there is no written proof for this income. In the facts and circumstances, Rs.3,000/-p.m. as income for a driver does not appears to be on the higher side. 7. The Tribunal also added Rs.2,000/- more to the said Rs.3,000/-. Totally, awarded Rs.8,02,000/-. 6. It is a fact that the deceased was a driver. Of course, there is no written proof for this income. In the facts and circumstances, Rs.3,000/-p.m. as income for a driver does not appears to be on the higher side. 7. The Tribunal also added Rs.2,000/- more to the said Rs.3,000/-. In SMT.SARALA VERMA AND OTHERS Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER [2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC)], depending upon the age of the deceased, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed adding of 30%, 50% of salary to his last salary for loss of future prospects when the deceased held a stable job, such as Govt. service or service in public corporations etc., Subsequently, in SANTOSH DEVI Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS [2012 ACJ 1428], the Hon'ble Supreme Court extended this benefit to persons employed in unorganized sectors and private employment also. So, as per SANTHOSH DEVI(supra), 50% of his last salary has to be added for loss of future prospects. Thus, Rs.1,500/- has to be added to Rs.3,000/-p.m. Then it comes to Rs.4,500/- p.m. 8. Deducting a sizable sum from the income of the deceased towards his pleasure and other expenses has come to stay. Prior to SARALA VERMA(supra), in this regard, there is no consistency. Tribunals effected different rate of cut. This has been set right by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SARALA VERMA(supra). Now, based on the size of the family and marital status of the deceased, or a young person, who headed a big family, the rate of this deduction has to be determined. As per the Rule in SARALA VERMA, for the present case, the deduction should be 1/4th and not 1/3rd. 9. Now, calculating on the above lines, for the multiplier 17', it comes to Rs.6,88,500/-. (Rs.4,500 x 12 = Rs.54,000/- less 1/4th = Rs.40,500/- x 17 = Rs.6,88,500/-). Accordingly, Rs.7,20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency is reduced to Rs.6,88,500/-. The Tribunal had awarded only Rs.5,000/- each to the claimants 2 to 5 for loss of love and affection of the deceased. Considering the facts and circumstances, it is raised to Rs.10,000/- each. 10. The Tribunal had also awarded Rs.50,000/-towards conventional damages. It has no basis. Having after awarded compensation for cremation expenses and loss of love and affection and for loss of consortium awarding of the said Rs.50,000/- will not arise. Considering the facts and circumstances, it is raised to Rs.10,000/- each. 10. The Tribunal had also awarded Rs.50,000/-towards conventional damages. It has no basis. Having after awarded compensation for cremation expenses and loss of love and affection and for loss of consortium awarding of the said Rs.50,000/- will not arise. Thus, this Rs.50,000/- is disallowed. In other aspects, we are not interfering with the award of the Tribunal. 11. Accordingly, the award amount of the Tribunal is modified as follows:- 12. In the result, the total compensation of Rs.8,02,000/-awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.7,40,500/-, with 9% interest p.a. The appellant shall deposit the balance amount, if any, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The compensation amount shall be shared equally by the claimants. On such deposit, the adult claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective share of amount on their application. The minor claimants, on proof of their attaining majority, will receive their share of amount. Till such time, quarterly interest on their deposit shall be paid to the first respondent. Amount in excess of the above modified amount, if any available shall be paid to the appellant. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps. are closed.