Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J.— Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri R.K. Dubey, learned Counsel for the claimants. Through the instant F.A.F.O. under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the appellant has assailed the award dated 7.1.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 155 of 2009, awarding compensation of Rs.3,88,500/- with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization from the opposite party/appellant in favour of the claimant. The claim petition was filed by the respondents/claimants claiming Rs.12,32,800/- as compensation, stating inter alia that on 10.3.2009, at about 5.15 A.M., Shubham Kumar Singh, while driving Maruti Alto Car No. U.P.30H/2400 belonging to Brijesh Kumar Yadav, was on the way to Lucknow from Hardoi and when he reached Dayal Paradise Chauraha, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, all of a sudden, a bicycle came in front of his car and in order to save him, his car dashed the truck parked on the road. As a consequence whereof, Shubham Kumar Singh succumbed to injuries on the spot. As per the claimants, at the time of accident, deceased was aged about 22 years and was earning Rs.3300/-per month. The appellant/opposite party contested the claim by filing written statement seeking dismissal of the claim petition. In order to establish their claim, claimants examined Awan Kumar Singh as P.W.-1 and Devendra Singh as P.W.2. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned tribunal allowed the claim and awarded the amount indicated hereinabove. Being not satisfied with the award, the Insurance Company has preferred the instant appeal. Factum of accident and the resultant expiry of deceased Shubham Kumar Singh are not disputed by the parties. However, learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that at the time of accident, deceased Shubham Kumar Singh is unmarried but the Tribunal, without considering the said facts, has erred in deducting 1/3rd amount instead of 50% from the total income of the deceased. In support of his submission, learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon Amrit Bhanu Shali and others Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others reported in 2012 (3) ACCD 1137 (SC). Learned Counsel for the respondents/claimants did not dispute the fact that at the time of accident, deceased was unmarried. In support of his submission, learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon Amrit Bhanu Shali and others Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others reported in 2012 (3) ACCD 1137 (SC). Learned Counsel for the respondents/claimants did not dispute the fact that at the time of accident, deceased was unmarried. No other pleas have been raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant except the plea that the Tribunal has wrongly deducted the amount from the total income of the deceased. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the records, there is no doubt that at the time of accident, deceased was bachelor. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd amount instead of 50% from the total income of the deceased in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Amrit Bhanu Shali (supra) as well as Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009 (6) SCC 121 . In view of the above, we find force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the directions were made incorrectly by the Tribunal Since the Tribunal has opined that total income of the deceased at the time of accident as Rs.36,000/- per annum, as such, keeping in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, referred to above, the assessed amount to be paid to dependents of the deceased comes to Rs.18,000/-. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified to the extent that Rs.18,000/- shall be paid as compensation to the dependents of the deceased. The other amount payable to the claimants shall be determined as per the order modified hereinabove. The amount deposited in this Court shall be remitted to the Tribunal by the registry forthwith and the Tribunal shall release the same immediately in favour of the claimants-respondents. The appeal is partly allowed. No order as to costs. Registry shall remit the lower court record forthwith. _____________