Judgment : Puneet Gupta, J.-The judgment shall dispose of above captioned two appeals which arise out of common award dated 01.02.2016, passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srinagar in two separate claim petitions. The two separate claim petitions filed before the Tribunal arise out of accident allegedly caused on 30.03.2010 on Srinagar- Jammu National Highway at Galandar, Pampore due to rash and negligent driving by Mohd. Maqbool of a tipper bearing registration No. JK03A-0108 The said vehicle-Tipper hit Vehicle-Tata Sumo-which resulted into death of Showkat Ali, passenger in the said vehicle, and Irshad Ahmad Khan who was driving the Tata Sumo vehicle. The two claim petitions filed by the legal heirs of the deceased persons resulted into passing of awards by common judgment. It is suffice to mention here that the appellant has not challenged the accident which took place allegedly due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tipper and thus this court in appeal is not required to detain itself in detail in dealing with the alleged accident in question and the liability of the appellant to compensate the claimants, if any, in both the claim petitions. The compensation awarded passed by the Tribunal was ‘just’ in the facts of the case is the question which requires determination in the appeal. 2. The appellant has challenged the award on the grounds: that the deceased persons had no fixed income and the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased, the prospective earning recorded of the deceased and the deduction made by the Tribunal qua the earning of the deceased are not as per law. The court deals with both the awards given by the Tribunal separately in the present appeal. CMAM No.66/2017 in Claim Petition No.132/2010: 3. The Tribunal in Claim Petition No.132/2010 awarded Rs.32,65,000/- in favour of the claimants. The Tribunal held the deceased to be hawker at the time of accident and assessed his monthly income at the time of his death as Rs.15000/- and added 50% of the income as future one of the deceased who was bachelor while calculating the compensation. The Tribunal also deducted 1/3rd of the income of the deceased on account of personal and living expenses as it held that the claimants who are the parents, three sisters and one brother were being maintained by the victim at the time of the accident. The Tribunal also deducted 1/3rd of the income of the deceased on account of personal and living expenses as it held that the claimants who are the parents, three sisters and one brother were being maintained by the victim at the time of the accident. The Tribunal after applying the multiplier of 18 as the age of the victim was 24 at the time of death and calculating amount under other heads awarded Rs.32,40,000/- in favour of the claimants. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the monthly income of the victim as well as adding 50% as the future income and also deducting only 1/3rd of the income of the deceased, while awarding compensation to the claimants. The precise submission is that as the deceased was not having fixed income, therefore, the addition of 50% as prospective income of the deceased was not as per law. Secondly, the deduction to the extent of 1/3rd is also not permissible as the brothers and sisters could not be said to be dependent upon the income of the deceased at the time of his death. 5. Learned counsel for the claimants has, however, rebutted the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant as he has submitted that the appellant had no case to file the appeal against the claimants. The calculation made by the Tribunal on the above count is perfectly valid in law and does not require any modification in the appeal. 6. So far as the earning of the deceased at the time of his death is concerned, the Tribunal has held that the victim was dealing in shawls, suits and blankets etc. and the bills/vouchers have been placed on record with regard to the purchase of the items from different agencies. The Tribunal after analyzing the evidence on record has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- p.m. The court does not find any reason not to agree with the finding of the Tribunal in this respect though the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the income assessed is excessive. The nature of the vocation carried out by the deceased prompts this court to accept the income assessed by the Tribunal of the deceased at the time of his death. The nature of the vocation carried out by the deceased prompts this court to accept the income assessed by the Tribunal of the deceased at the time of his death. As far as the future earning that the deceased was expected to earn in case he had not died in the accident the addition on that account should be 40% and not 50% as held by the Tribunal as the deceased cannot be said to have fixed income keeping in view the nature of occupation. The ratio laid down by the Apex Court in case titled National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & others reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 is required to be applied in the present case as it was held so where the deceased had no fixed income. 7. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 18 keeping in view the age of the petitioner falling in the bracket of 21 to 25. No fault can be found in the finding of the Tribunal in this regard. 8. The Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd of the income of the deceased, who was bachelor, towards his own expenses keeping in view the evidence that has come on record that he is survived by the mother and even minor siblings who were dependent upon the earnings of the deceased. The judgment in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) which also takes note of the law laid down in case titled Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 does not hold that deduction is required to be applied in a straight-jacket manner. The facts of the case ultimately decide the deduction that is to be made while calculating the compensation in any given case. The Tribunal has not erred in its finding in this aspect of the matter. 9. Thus, the total compensation that is worked out on the basis of above comes to Rs.30,24,000/-. 10. The claimants have been granted Rs.25000/- on account of funeral expenses of the deceased and the same is justified and thus no interference is called for the compensation awarded under this heading. 11. Thus, the claimants of the deceased are held entitled to Rs.30,49,000/. 12. The simple interest awarded by the Tribunal @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the final liquidation does not require any interference in the appeal. 11. Thus, the claimants of the deceased are held entitled to Rs.30,49,000/. 12. The simple interest awarded by the Tribunal @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the final liquidation does not require any interference in the appeal. The appellant is liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants. The appeal is allowed to the extent mentioned above. CMAM No.80/2016 in Claim Petition No. 146/2010: 13. The deceased Irshad Ahmed Bhat died on spot in the accident and the same is not disputed. The claimants are entitled to compensation as awarded by the Tribunal is the moot point in the appeal. 14. The deceased was working as Auto Mobile mechanic with Akbar Auto Works Bus Stand, Bandipora. The claimants have placed on record the certificate from the proprietor to that effect and the Tribunal on the basis of evidence that has come on record has held that the income of the deceased was not permanent and regular and the court assessed the monthly income of the deceased at the time of his death as Rs.12000/-. The Tribunal further added 50% as future income to the assessed income of Rs.12000/- per month and also deducted 1/3rd of his income on account of his personal and living expenses as the deceased was maintaining his parents, three sisters and two brothers at the time of his death. The Tribunal also applied multiplier of 17 taking into consideration the age of the victim being 26 years. Thus, the loss of dependency under various heads was assessed at Rs.24,48,000/-. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in assessment of the income of the deceased at the time of his death. Similarly, the addition of 50% of the income on account of future one is also faulty and, lastly, the deceased being bachelor, the Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/3rd of his income on account of his personal and living expenses. 16. The learned counsel for the claimants has vehemently argued that the compensation assessed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law and requires no modification by the appellate court. 17. 16. The learned counsel for the claimants has vehemently argued that the compensation assessed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law and requires no modification by the appellate court. 17. As far as the monthly income assessed by the Tribunal is concerned, the court is of the view that the same does not require any interference in any manner as the same has been done by the Tribunal keeping in view the facts of the case. The deceased was mechanic and the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.12,000/- per month at the time of his death on the basis of evidence brought on record in the shape of oral and documentary evidence cannot held to be not justified. 18. As far as the future earning that the deceased was expected to earn in case he had not died in the accident the addition on that account should be 40% and not 50% as held by the Tribunal as the deceased cannot be said to have fixed income keeping in view the nature of occupation. The ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) is required to be applied in the present case as it was held so where the deceased had no fixed income. 19. The Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd of the income on account of his personal and living expenses though the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that deceased being bachelor the deduction has to be half of the income of the deceased and not what is held by the Tribunal. Again, the court does not intend to modify the finding of the Tribunal on this aspect as the Tribunal has taken into consideration the dependency factor of the claimants of the deceased. The parents of the deceased are alive and even if the sisters and brothers are to be excluded from the dependency of the deceased even then the 1/3rd deduction made by the Tribunal is justified and is upheld in the present appeal. The multiplier of 17 applied keeping in view the age of the deceased as 26 years does not require any interference as the same is as per the law on the subject. Thus the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.22,84,800/-. 20. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.25000/- on account of funeral expenses of the deceased. The multiplier of 17 applied keeping in view the age of the deceased as 26 years does not require any interference as the same is as per the law on the subject. Thus the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.22,84,800/-. 20. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.25000/- on account of funeral expenses of the deceased. To say the least, the compensation awarded on the above account does not require any slashing in the appeal and thus the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is upheld. 21. The total compensation to which the claimants are held entitled to comes to Rs.23,09,800/-. The award stands modified only to the extent as held above. The simple interest awarded by the Tribunal @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the final liquidation does not require any interference in the appeal. The appellant is liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants. The appeal is allowed to the extent mentioned above. 22. The balance amount, if any, deposited shall stand released in favour of the claimants of both the appeals on filing of the applications before Registrar Judicial of the court.