JUDGMENT V.M. Velumani, J. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed against the Award dated 31.12.2007, passed in MCOP.Nos.68 and 1420 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Principal District Judge, Madurai. 2. Since both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are arising out of the same accident, they are heard together and disposed of by way of this common Judgment. 3. The appellant/Insurance Company in both the appeals is fourth respondent in the claim petition. They have filed these appeals challenging only the quantum of compensation granted to the claimants. The parties are referred to as per their rank in the claim petitions. 4. The claimants, who are the legal heirs and dependants of the deceased filed the claim petitions, claiming compensation for the death of one Velrani and Sathish Selvam respectively. According to the claimants, the deceased and Others were travelling in the Van belonging to the first respondent, insured with the second respondent and at that time, the Lorry belonging to the third respondent insured with the fourth respondent driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the Van and caused accident. In the accident, the deceased sustained multiple injuries and subsequently, died due to the injuries. 5. The Tribunal considering the pleadings oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of both the vehicles belonging to the respondents 1 and 3 and directed the respondents 1 and 2 to pay 50% of compensation and the respondents 3 and 4 to pay 50% of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 6. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation granted to the claimants, the fourth respondent/Insurance Company has come out with the present two appeals. 7. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the notional income fixed by the Tribunal is without any basis and is excessive. The Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3rd, while calculating the loss of income. Both the contentions are without merits. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants contended that the deceased in CMA(MD).No.109 of 2009 was doing tailoring work and was earning a sum of Rs. The Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3rd, while calculating the loss of income. Both the contentions are without merits. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants contended that the deceased in CMA(MD).No.109 of 2009 was doing tailoring work and was earning a sum of Rs. 2,500/- per month and the deceased in CMA(MD).No.110 of 2009 was having Auto mechanic work shop and was earning a sum of Rs. 2,500/- per month. The documents filed by the claimants to prove their contention were accepted. Considering the age and nature of work, the Tribunal has fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 2,500/- per month and the same is reasonable. As far as deduction of 1/3rd is concerned, the Tribunal has held that when the deceased in CMA(MD).No.109 of 2009 is a house wife, there is no necessity to deduct 1/3rd. Further, it is seen that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects. In both the cases, at the time of accident, the deceased were 37 years and 19 years respectively. The Tribunal ought to have awarded 40% towards future prospects. In view of the same, the loss of income calculated without deducting 1/3rd , does not warrant any interference by this Court. The amounts awarded under other heads are just and proper compensation and the same have been confirmed. 9. In the result, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed, confirming the Award dated 31.12.2007, passed in MCOP.Nos.68 and 1420 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Principal District Judge, Madurai. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 10. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount awarded by the Tribunal together with interest, after deducting the amount already deposited if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw their shares as per the apportionment fixed by the Tribunal, by filing proper application before the Tribunal.