JUDGMENT These three appeals by the National Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the insurer’) are directed against the composite award dated 31.08.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu (hereinafter ‘the Tribunal’) in claim petition Nos. 2002/C, 203/C and 204/C titled Balwant Ram and another v. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, Roop Singh and another v. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd and others and Vikram Singh and another v. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd and others, respectively. The Tribunal vide impugned award dated 31.08.2019 had awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 19,02,128/- in each case along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. The Tribunal also found the owners of both the offending vehicles involved in the accident as joint tort-feasers and accordingly, held the appellant and respondent No.5 jointly liable to indemnify the owners of the offending vehicles insured with the respective insurance companies. 2. The appellant feeling dissatisfied with the amount awarded has filed these three separate appeals, whereas respondent No.1-ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, the other tortfeaser chose to file review petition before the Tribunal itself. The review petition filed by the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company was allowed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 17.01.2020 and the total award passed in each case was revised and modified to Rs. 16,22,000/-. The Tribunal accepted the plea of the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company that since the deceased girls were unmarried and, therefore, deduction @ 50% of the income was required to be made. Similarly, the Tribunal also found that it had erroneously applied the multiplier of 16, whereas, given the age of the deceased girls i.e. 18 to 19 years, it was the multiplier of 18 that was applicable in view Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 . 3. As a matter of fact, the impugned award has undergone review and, therefore, in the absence of challenge to the modified award passed by the Tribunal in review, technically these appeals are not maintainable. Otherwise also, the appellant-insurer have assailed the impugned award on two counts i.e. the deduction should have been applied @ 50% from the income of the deceased and also that the Tribunal has arbitrarily and without any justification taken the income of each deceased girls as Rs. 10,000/-, that too, when there was no evidence to substantiate the same. 4. Otherwise also, the appellant-insurer have assailed the impugned award on two counts i.e. the deduction should have been applied @ 50% from the income of the deceased and also that the Tribunal has arbitrarily and without any justification taken the income of each deceased girls as Rs. 10,000/-, that too, when there was no evidence to substantiate the same. 4. Per contra, Mr. J.P. Gandhi, learned counsel appearing for the claimants, fairly states that in the instant case, the permissible deduction on account of personal expenses would be 50% of the income and the same has already been accepted by the Tribunal and the award modified on review by the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company. It is submitted that the award is also modified to the extent of holding the applicability of multiplier of 18 instead of 16. Learned counsel, however, strongly disputes the plea of the appellant that the income of the deceased girls should not have been taken as Rs. 10,000/-. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that, technically, all these appeals are not maintainable, as the impugned common award passed in three claim petitions has already undergone change, in that, the Tribunal has reviewed it and modified the compensation awarded. This was done by the Tribunal on a review petition filed by the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company, a joint tort-feaser with the appellant-insurance company. Since the award is a single composite award and has been modified by the Tribunal, as such, the impugned award has ceased to exist independently of the modified award. Without going into this aspect of the matter, I am of the view that these appeals can be disposed of in terms of the modified award passed by the Tribunal in review on 17.01.2020. 6. Regarding the plea of the learned counsel for the appellant that since the deceased were only college going girls, therefore, it would not be just to take their notional income as Rs. 10,000/-. It is noticed that there is ample evidence on record to show that the deceased were college going girls and had reasonably bright career ahead. They were excepted to enter some job or avocation fetching reasonably good income. 7. 10,000/-. It is noticed that there is ample evidence on record to show that the deceased were college going girls and had reasonably bright career ahead. They were excepted to enter some job or avocation fetching reasonably good income. 7. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and the evidence brought on record by the claimants and also that there was no evidence led by the appellant in rebuttal, the Tribunal assumed the income of the girls as ¹ 10,000/- per month each, I see no reason or justification to differ with the view taken by the Tribunal. 8. Admittedly, the deceased girls were unmarried and, therefore, deduction @ 50% of the income was applicable. This exactly what has been done by the Tribunal by accepting the review petition filed by the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company. Similarly, the multiplier used by the Tribunal was not correct and the same was also rectified by the Tribunal while accepting the review petition and accordingly, the multiplier of 18 was used. 9. For the reasons aforesaid and also falling in line with the view taken by the Tribunal on review, the amount of compensation is re-worked as under:- Notional income Rs. 10,000/-. Adding 40% towards loss of future prospects, the monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs. 14,000/-. Deducting 50% towards personal expenses, the total loss of income per month would come to Rs. 7,000/-. Thus, total annual loss of income comes to 7,000 x12 = Rs. 84,000/-. Adopting the multiplier of 18, the total loss of income would come to 84000 x 18 = Rs. 15,12,000/- in each case. 10. Accordingly, the claimants/respondent Nos.1 and 2 in these three appeals are held entitled to compensation in the following manner:- Loss of dependency Rs. 15,12,000/- Loss of consortium Rs. 80,000/- Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 16,22,000/- 11. The amount as per the impugned award as modified is to be paid by the appellant and respondent No.5 in equal shares and would carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the payment is made. 12. The amount, if deposited, shall be released by the Registry in favour of the claimants in terms of the modified award as per the terms and conditions imposed by the Tribunal after proper identification and verification.