AKHILESH CHANDRA, J.:–This is an appeal preferred by the Insurer-Opposite Party No. 2 against the Judgment dated 24th September, 2010 and Award dated 04th October, 2010 passed by Sri Ramesh Kumar Raseria, District Judge-Cum-Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Katihar in M.V. Claim Case No. 23 of 2007, awarding a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- with interest @ 9% to compensate death of the deceased at the age of twenty nine and half leaving behind his parents and only brother younger to him, who are claimants-respondent nos. 1 – 3. 2. Admittedly, the deceased died on 28.10.2006 in an accident was a legal practitioner at civil court, Katihar for about two years and was also a eligible bachelor and member of small family consisting his father, a practicing advocate, mother and a deaf and dump younger brother. 3. Since the factum of accident and negligence etc. are not in dispute, the further details need not be stated here. The only controversy in the appeal centers round towards dependency and quantum of compensation. 4. As regard to income of the deceased in the claim application at column – 8, it is stated as Rs. 8,000/- per month and the applicant no. 1 aged about 68 years on the date of examination, i.e., 23rd January, 2010 as first witness on behalf of the claimant has stated about the income of the deceased as Rs. 12,000 – 13,000/- per month, but failed to produce any supporting material about his income as claimed in the pleading or during enquiry. Similarly, the second witness also a local practicing advocate claimed the income of the deceased per month as Rs. 12,000 – 13,000/-, but expressed his inability to produce any paper regarding the same. There is no other material to put light on the point of real income of the deceased. 5. While assailing the finding of the Claim Tribunal mainly on the point of quantum of the award, it is submitted that in absence of any evidence regarding the income of the deceased, the “principle of notional income” is to be applied with and at best a sum of Rs. 100/- per day would have the income of the deceased and the mother, the claimant no. 100/- per day would have the income of the deceased and the mother, the claimant no. 2 being in fact only the person said to be dependent upon the deceased, 50% of the income under law is to be treated as personal expenditure and the multiplier is to be used in view of the age of the mother which in absence of any evidence, may be assumed 3 – 4 years less than the husband, the applicant no. 1, who at the time of death of the deceased was 64 years old, consequently, the age of the claimant no. 2 in no way can be less than 60 years, thus multiplier should be 8 and the brother, even if deaf and dump, cannot be treated dependent upon the deceased, who in fact himself had started earning whatever it may be, recently and the applicant no. 1, as observed by the Claim Tribunal, is a senior and leading practitioner being head of the family is deemed to be bread provider to all, but the Claim Tribunal has awarded exorbitant amount. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the claimants-respondents while supporting the quantum awarded by the Tribunal below submitted that in fact no interference is required in the award since the death of the eldest and only physically fit son out of two, the parents have suffered irreparable loss and future of their only surviving son, who is deaf and dump, had gone into deep slumber, who also needs good support. 7. The learned counsel on the point of dependency of brother upon the deceased placed reliance in a case of “Megjibhai Khimji Vira and Another Vs. Chaturbhai Taljabhai and Others”, reported in “AIR 1977 Gujarat 195” and in a case of “THE General Manager, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore Vs. Peerappa Parasappa Sangolli and Others” reported in “AIR 1979 Karnataka 154”. In earlier case, the brother and nephew of the deceased were claimants, whereof, in later case, the brother and sister were the claimants. And in paragraph – 14 of the judgment it is held :– “14. . . . . . . . the brothers and the sister of the deceased are entitled to compensation as legal representatives, provided they prove their dependency on the deceased.” And the Apex Court in a case of “Shakti Devi Vs. New India Insurance Co. And in paragraph – 14 of the judgment it is held :– “14. . . . . . . . the brothers and the sister of the deceased are entitled to compensation as legal representatives, provided they prove their dependency on the deceased.” And the Apex Court in a case of “Shakti Devi Vs. New India Insurance Co. Ltd.” reported in “2011 (1) PLJR 150 (SC)”, has further approved its earlier decision in a case of “Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another” reported in “(2009) 6 SCC 121”, wherein, while confirming the dependency etc. in paragraph – 10 (31), it is held :– “10 (31). . . . . . . . subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.” 8. In order to support dependency of applicant no. 3 upon his deceased brother practically there appears no material. Applicant no. 1 as A.W. 1 in paragraph – 3 of his deposition has simply said :– “3. mera dushra putra santosh pratap gunga aiwam bahara hai jisse mera putra rupesh pratap hi mere pure pariwar ka ekmatra sahara tha. unki mrityu se muje apurniye chati hui hai.” And similar was the statement of A.W. 3, Shiv Sundar Singh in paragraph – 3 of his deposition, though, A.W. 2, Nitesh in paragraph – 3 of his deposition states like this :– “3. dawakarta ke dushre putra santosh kumar gunga aiwam bahira hai jo kisi karya karne ke layak nahi hai. Uske nitya kriya me ek waikti ka sahara dena padta hai, jiska kharch bhai hi kiya karta tha.” But without furnishing any further detail and there is also no other evidence or witness examined on behalf of the claimants on the point. 9. Out of the total three applicants, only applicant no. Uske nitya kriya me ek waikti ka sahara dena padta hai, jiska kharch bhai hi kiya karta tha.” But without furnishing any further detail and there is also no other evidence or witness examined on behalf of the claimants on the point. 9. Out of the total three applicants, only applicant no. 1, the father of the deceased has been examined and there is no dispute on the finding of the Claim Tribunal that the father of the deceased is a good practicing senior lawyer and no evidence is adduced on behalf of the claimants to show that they were dependent upon the deceased. Here, the decision of Apex Court in “Sarla Verma’s Case” (supra) holds good and applicable and except the mother of the deceased, the applicant no. 2, no one else can be held dependent upon the deceased, who himself had just started legal practice for last two years. 10. As noticed earlier in the claim application mainly on the point of income of the deceased is stated as Rs. 8,000/- per month, but it is developed during enquiry and the only three witnesses examined have said about his earning worth Rs. 12,000 – 13,000/- per month without any supporting material. 11. It is contended by learned counsel representing the appellant by placing reliance upon the decision of Apex Court in a case of “Ramchandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited” reported in “ (2011) 13 SCC 236 ” that in view of undisputed fact that the deceased was practicing as a lawyer and belongs to lawyer’s family at least his income as claimed may not be disputed. On going through the above decision, wherein, in paragraph – 14, it is held :– “14. We hasten to add that in all cases and in all circumstances, the Tribunal need not accept the claim of the claimant in the absence of supporting material. It depends on the facts of each case. In a given case, if the claim made is so exorbitant or if the claim made is contrary to ground realities, the Tribunal may not accept the claim and may proceed to determine the possible income by resorting to some guesswork, which may include the ground realities prevailing at the relevant point of time.” The income of the deceased as mentioned in the claim application as of Rs. 8,000/- per month appears reasonable, accordingly accepted. 12. 8,000/- per month appears reasonable, accordingly accepted. 12. The applicant no. 2, mother of the deceased since is the only person said to be dependent upon the deceased for the purposes of compensation has chosen not to examine herself as a witness nor by any means any statement or proof of her age is on record. In absence of all such, one is to work on normal presumption of the wife being 3 – 4 years younger than the husband, consequently, her age is deemed to be 60 years since at the relevant time her husband, the applicant no. 1 (A.W. 1) was at the age of 64. 13. The Apex Court in “Sarla Verma’s Case” (supra) approving the earlier decision in a case of “Kerala Srtc Vs. Susamma Thomas” reported in “ (1994) 2 SCC 176 ” has come to the conclusion, the multipliers will come down accordingly as the age of the deceased person (or that of the dependents, whichever is higher) goes up. Accordingly, the multiplier applicable in the case in hand is 8. 14. Much argument is also advanced as to deciding the quantum of compensation, taking into consideration, the future prospect of the deceased in the instant case a legal practitioner intending to appear at competitive examinations for judicial and other services etc., but the Apex Court in “Sarla Verma’s Case” (supra) in paragraph – 24 has already held as such:– “24. . . . . . . . . . . . Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments, etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances.” And in the instant case, there is no material leading towards any departure from such principle. 15. To sum up, taking into consideration the income of the deceased worth Rs. 8,000/- per month, i.e., Rs. 96,000/- (8,000 x 12) per annum, by deducting 50% as personal expenditure bringing it down to Rs. 48,000/- (96,000 – 48,000) and the same on being multiplied by 8 comes to Rs. 3,84,000/- (48,000 x 8) added with RS. 10,000/- (5,000/- each as loss of estate and towards funeral expenses), it comes to the tune of Rs. 96,000/- (8,000 x 12) per annum, by deducting 50% as personal expenditure bringing it down to Rs. 48,000/- (96,000 – 48,000) and the same on being multiplied by 8 comes to Rs. 3,84,000/- (48,000 x 8) added with RS. 10,000/- (5,000/- each as loss of estate and towards funeral expenses), it comes to the tune of Rs. 3,94,000/- (3,84,000 + 10,000), the amount for which the mother of the deceased, the applicant no. 2, only is entitled, which is just and adequate compensation, not making the death of her eldest son a bonanza. However, under the special features of this case, it may be advisable for her to part with substantial portion of the award and keep the same in fixed deposit of any nationalized bank, preferably, under monthly income scheme to secure the future of her only surviving son, the applicant no. 3, specially, after departing his parents for heavenly abode, if she so wishes and thinks it proper. The money deposited by the applicant as statutory deposit and in compliance of orders of this Court be transmitted to the Claim Tribunal for adjustment against the payment. The appellant is directed to pay the amount within a period of six weeks with an interest of 6% from the date of application till actual payment. With the above modification in the award, the appeal succeeds.