Judgment :- 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 5.12.2003 made in MCOP.No.448/2002 by the learned Additional District Judge (FTC-II) (MACT) Salem, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.11,56,500/- as total compensation to the claimants 1 and 2, who are the parents of the deceased Raja Annamalai, who died in the motor accident that had occurred on 8.1.2002, with interest at 9 per cent p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization. 2. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail, such as how the accident occurred, who was negligent in driving the offending vehicle, who is liable for paying compensation etc. It is for the reason that firstly, all these findings are recorded in favour of the claimants by the Tribunal. Secondly, none of these findings, though recorded in favour of the claimants, are under challenge at the instance of any of the Appellant Insurance Company. In this view of the matter, there is no justification to burden the judgement by detailing facts on all these issues. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal with regard to the negligence aspect fixing the same on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle is liable to be confirmed and accordingly, it is confirmed. 3. Mr.K.S.Narasimhan, the learned counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company has contended that as the deceased was studying only III Year MBBS Course and much time would be required to start the earning and therefore, the Tribunal had erred in fixing Rs.15000/- as monthly income without any basis. He further contended that while arriving at the contribution to the family, 50 per cent of his earnings ought to have been deducted towards his personal expenses. But, in the present case, the Tribunal erred in taking Rs.8000/- as contribution to the family. The learned counsel would further contend that unless the parents establish that they had a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefits if their son had lived, compensation cannot be awarded at a higher rate. The learned counsel submitted that since the deceased at the time of death was studying III Year MBBS Course and was not earning, his income should have been assessed by the Tribunal on the basis of the notional income of a non earning person as fixed in the II Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. The learned counsel submitted that since the deceased at the time of death was studying III Year MBBS Course and was not earning, his income should have been assessed by the Tribunal on the basis of the notional income of a non earning person as fixed in the II Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. In reply to the above said contentions of the learned counsel for the Appellant, Mr.D.Balachandran, the learned counsel for the Respondents/claimants contended that the deceased had all prospects in medical profession, as he was doing III Year, MBBS Course and considering all those aspects and the family background of the deceased, the Tribunal has rightly taken the contribution to the family as Rs.8000/- and applying the multiplier of 12, determined the loss of dependency at Rs.11,52,000/-. 5. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and also perused materials placed on record. 6. Admittedly, the deceased was studying III Year MBBS Course at the time of the accident. The Tribunal, considering the future prospects of the deceased, has taken the earnings of the deceased at Rs.15000/- p.m. and deducted Rs.7000/- towards his personal expenses and taking into consideration the age of the mother of the deceased, who was 45 years old at the time of the accident, applied the multiplier of 12 and arrived at the total loss of dependency at Rs.11,52,000/- and further added Rs.2500/-for the loss of love and affection and Rs.2000/- for funeral expenses. 7. In view of the present income being earned by Doctors, there cannot be any doubt that the deceased would have earned Rs.15000/-to Rs.20000/-p.m. It has to be seen that nowadays even 4th Class Employees are also getting minimum salary of Rs.7000/-to Rs.10000/- p.m. depending upon their service. The Junior Assistant are getting Rs.12,000/- to Rs.15,000/- p.m. The parents, who come from the weaker section of the Society, must be having greater expectation that his son would earn more income after completion of the MBBS Course. Though there is no concrete evidence to prove his probable income, but, as he was doing MBBS Course, he was likely to earn substantially and therefore, his income has been rightly fixed at Rs.15000/- p.m. by the Tribunal. Though there is no concrete evidence to prove his probable income, but, as he was doing MBBS Course, he was likely to earn substantially and therefore, his income has been rightly fixed at Rs.15000/- p.m. by the Tribunal. Therefore, considering the normal pay scales being earned by the Government Employees and also the minimum wage scales fixed to the technical persons, I am of the view that the income of the deceased, who will be acquiring MBBS Degree in another 2 or 3 years, can be taken as Rs.15000/-p.m. as done by the Tribunal. 8. The learned counsel for the Appellant assailed the award for deduction of only Rs.7000/- instead of Rs.7500/- towards personal expenses and contended that 50 per cent of the income should be deducted towards his personal expenses as he was a bachelor. The parents, who are from the weaker section of the Society, were depending wholly on the earnings of their son. It has been held in a number of decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court that 1/3rd has to be deducted towards personal income. In a recent decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported 2009-ACJ-2359-SC (Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Deo Patodi, it was held that deduction of 1/3rd for personal expenses is the ordinary rule. In Fakeerappa Vs. Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory (2004-ACJ-699-SC) the Honourable Supreme Court deducted only 1/3rd towards personal expenses from the income of the bachelor. Similar is the view taken by the Honourable Supreme Court in Bilkish Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited (2008-ACJ-1357-SC) and Managing Director, Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs. Sarojamma (2008-ACJ-1619-SC). 9. The aforesaid ratio adopted by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decisions cited supra demonstrates that in all cases 50 per cent towards personal expenses need not be deducted and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, deduction towards personal expenses can be made either by 1/3rd or 50 per cent as the court thinks it fit. In this case, taking the family background, status and other aspects into consideration, the Tribunal has deducted Rs.7000/-towards personal expenses and taken Rs.8000/- as contribution to the family, which, in my view, is not improper or unreasonable. Therefore, if Rs.7000/-is deducted towards personal expenses, Rs.8000/- is the contribution to the family and the Tribunal rightly arrived at the annual loss of dependency at Rs.96000/-. Therefore, if Rs.7000/-is deducted towards personal expenses, Rs.8000/- is the contribution to the family and the Tribunal rightly arrived at the annual loss of dependency at Rs.96000/-. As per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court rendered in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC (2009-ACJ-1298-SC) considering the age of the mother, who was 45 years old at the time of the accident, 14 is the proper multiplier. But, however, the Tribunal has taken the multiplier of 12, as there is no concrete evidence to prove the age of the mother and arrived at the total loss of dependency at Rs.11,52,000/-, which in my view just and reasonable compensation. The award amounts awarded by the Tribunal under other heads viz. Rs.2500/-for the loss of love and affection and Rs.2000/-for funeral expenses shall stand unaltered. In all, the claimants 1 and 2 are entitled to a sum of Rs.11,56,500/-as total compensation with interest at 9 per cent p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization as awarded by the Tribunal. 10. In this appeal, a memo is filed to the effect that the 1st claimant died on 27.3.2012, leaving behind him the claimants 2 to 5/ Respondents 2 to 5 herein as his only legal heirs and they were already on record in this appeal. 11. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the impugned award with interest as awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed as mentioned above. The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.11,56,500/-(Rupees eleven lakhs fifty six thousand five hundred only) as awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 9 per cent p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization. The 2nd claimant is permitted to withdraw her share amount with interest as apportioned by the Tribunal, after giving credit to the amount already withdrawn if any by her. As the 1st claimant died pending this appeal, the claimants 2 to 5 are entitled to equal share in the share of the 1st claimant and accordingly, they are permitted to withdraw their respective share with proportionate interest. No costs.