Judgment 1. The only point that is canvassed in this appeal by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the deceased was a bachelor and aged about 27 years at the time of accident and hence, the Tribunal committed an error in deducting 1/3rd amount towards his personal expenses. The Tribunal, in this case, arrived at Rs.4,000/- as monthly income of the deceased. Thereafter, the Tribunal deducted 1/3 amount from the aforesaid amount towards personal expenses and based on the rest of the amount, the compensation was arrived. 2. According to the appellant, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% of the amount from the monthly earnings towards personal expenses and accordingly, the compensation could have been arrived. He has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Reshkumari V. Madan Mohan reported in 2013(1) TN MAC 481 (SC) and more particularly para 37. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that there is no need to interfere with the award of the Tribunal. According to him, it requires a slight upward revision of compensation. He has strenuously contended that the deceased was aged 27 years and his monthly income was taken as Rs.4,000/- by the Tribunal. However, the employment was not proved. He has further submitted that in those circumstances, the monthly income shall be taken as Rs.6,000/-. He has relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in M. Sengabagam Vs. V. Vinod Kumar reported in 2013(2) TN MAC 450(DB) and more particularly para 10. He has further submitted that the Tribunal awarded only Rs.25,000/- towards love and affection to the claimants, who are the parents, while the same could be enhanced upto Rs.1,00,000/-. He has relied upon the same decision in this regard. Furthermore, he has submitted that taking into account the age of the mother of the deceased son, the multiplier was applied by the Tribunal. If the age of the deceased son is taken, the multiplier will be higher and in those circumstances, the compensation could also be higher. He has submitted that therefore, no interference is warranted. 4. Furthermore, he has submitted that taking into account the age of the mother of the deceased son, the multiplier was applied by the Tribunal. If the age of the deceased son is taken, the multiplier will be higher and in those circumstances, the compensation could also be higher. He has submitted that therefore, no interference is warranted. 4. Further, he has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ranjana Prakash and Others reported in 2011(2) TN MAC 313(SC), more particularly in para 6, wherein it has held that where in an appeal filed by the Owner/Insurer, if the High Court proposes to reduce the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Claimants can certainly defend the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, by pointing out other errors or omissions in the award, which if taken note of, would show that there was no need to reduce the amount awarded as compensation. 5. I have heard the submissions made by either side. 6. It is not in dispute that the deceased person was aged 27 years. It is also not in dispute that the employment of the deceased was not established. It is also not in dispute that the Tribunal took Rs.4,000/- as monthly earnings of the deceased person. 7. It is true that the three Judges of the bench of the Apex Court in Reshkumari V. Madan Mohan reported in 2013(1) TN MAC 481 (SC) has categorically held in para 37 that in cases, where the parents are the only dependants of the deceased, who is a bachelor, there should be deduction of 50% amount from the earnings, to arrive at the compensation. In the normal course, the award required interference and it should be reduced accordingly. 8. The Tribunal awarded compensation under various heads viz., (i) for Funeral Expenses Rs.10,000/-, (ii) for Love and Affection Rs.25,000/- and (iii) for Loss of Income Rs.4,20,000/- and totally awarded a compensation of Rs.4,55,000/-. If the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court is applied, the loss of income could be reduced by Rs.1,08,000/- and accordingly, the total loss of income could be arrived at Rs.3,12,000/-. But, I am not inclined to interfere with the award and to reduce the compensation, since, I fully agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the claimants. 9. But, I am not inclined to interfere with the award and to reduce the compensation, since, I fully agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the claimants. 9. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the claimants, the Tribunal fixed the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- instead of fixing at Rs.6,000/-. In the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the claimants in M. Sengabagam Vs. V. Vinod KUmar reported in 2013(2) TN MAC 450(DB), it was categorically held that in the absence of proving of employment, the monthly salary shall be fixed at Rs.6,000/-. It was a case, wherein, the accident took place on 28.12.2008, while in this case, the accident took place on 26.07.2010. Hence, there is much force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the claimants to take the monthly salary at Rs.6,000/-. If monthly salary is taken as Rs.6,000/- and 50% deduction is made towards personal expenses and the compensation is arrived thereafter, the loss of earning alone would come to Rs.4,68,000/-. 10. On that score alone, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the claimants, there is no necessity to interfere with the award. Furthermore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the claimants, only Rs.25,000/- awarded towards love and affection and it is a meagre one. Both the claimants are the father and mother of the deceased person. They lost their son at the age of 27 years. The Division Bench of this Court in M. Sengabagam Vs. V. Vinod Kumar reported in 2013(2) TN MAC 450(DB) relied on by the learned counsel for the claimants provides for Rs.1,00,000/- towards love and affection. 11. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the award. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. The claimants are permitted to withdraw the award amount deposited before the Tribunal with proportionate interest and costs.