JUDGMENT : 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree in MCOP.No.38 of 2006 dated 27.01.2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Padmanabhapuram. 2. In an accident which occurred on 27.09.2005 about 5.00 a.m., son of the respondents 1 and 2 died. Parents, three brothers and sister of the deceased filed a claim petition in MCOP.No.38 of 2006 dated 27.01.2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Padmanabhapuram, claiming compensation. The appellant insurance company resisted the claim. Upon analysis of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal fastened the liability on the appellant insurance company and awarded compensation of Rs.4,20,776/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Challenging the finding regarding negligence and quantum of compensation, the appellant has filed this appeal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 4. It is the case of the respondents/claimants that on 27.09.2005 about 05.00 a.m., the deceased travelled in Maxi Cab Van bearing registration No.TN-58-H-5627 which dashed against the vehicle bearing registration No. TN-28-H-9540. In the said accident, the deceased got injured and admitted in a Hospital and died on 28.09.2005 despite treatment. The FIR was registered against the driver of the vehicle in which the deceased travelled. One of the brothers of the deceased was examined as PW1 and reiterated the averments made in the claim petition. On the side of the appellant insurance company, RW1 to RW3 were examined. Upon consideration of the evidence, the Tribunal held that evidence of PW1 is corroborated by Ex.P1-FIR. On perusal of the evidence of RW3, the Tribunal held that there is a no definite material to fix negligence. On analysis of entire evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing registration No.T.N-58-H-5627 insured with the appellant. 5. It is well settled legal position that in claims cases, the test to prove negligence is preponderance of probability and strict proof of evidence required in criminal proceedings is not necessary. Testing the findings of the Tribunal regarding negligence on the principles of preponderance of probability, this Court finds no infirmity or perversity. Hence, the finding regarding negligence is confirmed. 6. The respondents/claimants claimed that at the time of accident, the deceased was working as a Mason and earning Rs.4,500/- per month. Testing the findings of the Tribunal regarding negligence on the principles of preponderance of probability, this Court finds no infirmity or perversity. Hence, the finding regarding negligence is confirmed. 6. The respondents/claimants claimed that at the time of accident, the deceased was working as a Mason and earning Rs.4,500/- per month. However, there was no proof produced to prove such claim. Hence, relying upon the decision in New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Smt. Kalpana reported in 2007 (1) TN MAC 1(SC), the Tribunal fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased and applying 9' multiplier as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2009 (4) MLJ 997, the Tribunal computed the loss of income of the deceased at Rs.3,24,000/-. Apart from the above, the Tribunal awarded Rs,60,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.20,000/- towards transportation charges, Rs.7,500/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.3,276/- towards medical bills and Rs.1,000/- towards damage to clothes and other articles. 7. Though the appellant has contended that the Tribunal has erred in fixing the monthly income of the deceased, this Court is not inclined to accept the same. In Managing Director vs. TNSTC, Coimbatore vs. Valliammal, 2011 (1) TN MAC 793, this Court fixed the monthly income of an agricultural coolie at Rs.4,500/-, considering the cost of rise in price and cost of living. In Sri Ramachandrappa Vs. The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd., 2011 (2) TNMAC 190 SC, the Supreme Court, having regard to the wages of a labourer, during the relevant period (1994 - between Rs.100 to Rs.150/- per day), determined the monthly income at Rs.4,500/-. Even in a recent judgment M.Sengabagam vs. V.Vinod Kumar, 2013 (2) TN MAC 450 (DB), a Division Bench of this Court held that the claimants did not produce evidence to ascertain the income of the deceased. However, considering the fact that the deceased was an agriculturist and a businessman in that case, income of Rs.6,000/- was fixed by the Division Bench. 8. However, considering the fact that the deceased was an agriculturist and a businessman in that case, income of Rs.6,000/- was fixed by the Division Bench. 8. Though the contention that the deceased was a bachelor at the time of accident and therefore, 50% of the income has to be deducted towards the personal expenses merits acceptance, this Court having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the amount awarded under other heads, is not inclined to accept the same i.e., the amount awarded under other heads are very low and no amount is awarded under the head 'future prospects'. The quantum of compensation of Rs.4,20,776/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum cannot be said to be excessive warranting interference by this Court. 9. The appellant is directed to deposit the entire award amount with proportionate accrued interest and costs to the credit of the claim petition within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the major respondents/claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective shares with interest and costs. The share of the minor respondent/claimant is directed to be deposited in a Nationalised Bank in Fixed Deposit till he attains majority. The interest accruing on such deposit shall be paid to the guardian of minor once in three months directly from the bank. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.