JUDGMENT : 1. The matter is heard through “Video Conferencing/Hybrid mode”. 2.This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed challenging the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 26.07.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.798 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, III Additional District Judge (FAC), Puducherry. 3.The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P.No.798 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, III Additional District Judge (FAC), Puducherry. The respondents 1 to 4 filed the above said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.31,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Nadana Sabapathy, who died in the accident that took place on 18.08.2013. 4.According to respondents 1 to 4, on 18.08.2013 at about 06.45 P.M., while the deceased Nadana Sabapathi was walking as pedestrian on the ECR Road, Pakkamudayanpet, Puducherry and crossing towards East to West near Papsco Vegetable Shop, the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.TN 68 D 3222 who was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner from South to North direction after Chain Factory Signal at a high speed, dashed against the said Nadana Sabapathi and caused the accident. In the accident, the said Nadana Sabapathi was thrown away and sustained fatal injuries on his head. Immediately after the accident, the said Nadana Sabapathy was taken to Jipmer Hospital. Inspite of the treatment, the said Nadana Sabapathi succumbed to injuries on 21.08.2013. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 4 filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.31,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the said Nadana Sabapathy against the 5th respondent and appellant-Insurance Company, being the owner and insurer of the bus respectively. 5.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus owned by 5th respondent and directed the 5th respondent and appellant to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.11,20,000/- as compensation to the respondents 1 to 4. 6.Questioning the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 26.07.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.798 of 2013, the appellant has come out with the present appeal. 7.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the deceased was a bachelor at the time of accident and the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% towards personal expenses instead of deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses. 7.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the deceased was a bachelor at the time of accident and the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% towards personal expenses instead of deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses. The respondents 2 to 4 are not the dependants of the deceased. The monthly income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.7,500/- is excessive and prayed for setting aside the award of the Tribunal. 8.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 contended that the deceased was a Painting Contractor and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. The Tribunal fixed only a meagre sum of Rs.7,500/- per month as notional income of the deceased. There are 4 dependants of the deceased and the respondents 2 to 4 are brothers and sister of the deceased and they are also dependants of the deceased and they are also entitled to compensation. The Tribunal relying on the judgment of this Court reported in 2016 (2) TNMAC 169, [Anthony Birnath Mary @ Anthony Mary and others Vs. M.Akbar Ali and others], held that even married sisters of the deceased are legal representative and entitled to compensation and the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th instead of deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses. In view of the same, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not excessive and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 9.Though notice has been served on the 5th respondent and his name is printed in the cause list, there is no representation for him, either in person or through counsel. 10.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and perused the entire materials on record. 11.It is the case of the respondents 1 to 4 that in the accident occurred by the negligence of the driver of the bus owned by 5th respondent, the Brother of the respondents 2 to 4 died. The respondents 2 to 4 along with the 1st respondent filed the claim petition for the death of the said Nadana Sabapathy. Pending appeal, the 1st respondent-Mother of the deceased Nadana Sabapathy died. The respondents 2 to 4, who are the sons and daughter of the 1st respondent contested the appeal. The Tribunal considering the materials and documents placed before it, fixed a sum of Rs.7,500/- per month as notional income of the deceased. Pending appeal, the 1st respondent-Mother of the deceased Nadana Sabapathy died. The respondents 2 to 4, who are the sons and daughter of the 1st respondent contested the appeal. The Tribunal considering the materials and documents placed before it, fixed a sum of Rs.7,500/- per month as notional income of the deceased. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 43 years, a Painting Contractor and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. The respondents 1 to 4 have not let in any document to prove the avocation and income of the deceased. In the absence of any document with regard to avocation and income of the deceased, the Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs.7,500/- per month as notional income of the deceased. At the time of accident, the deceased was a bachelor aged 42 years as per Ex.R2/birth certificate of the deceased. The Tribunal following the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2017 (2) TNMAC 609 (SC), [National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others] and 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 SC Supreme Court, [Sarla Verma & others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another], rightly granted 25% enhancement towards future prospects and applied multiplier 14'. The deceased was a bachelor at the time of accident. The Tribunal has erroneously deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and granted compensation for loss of dependency. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 SC Supreme Court, [cited supra], for the death of a bachelor, 50% has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. In view of the same, by deducting 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased, the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency comes to Rs.7,87,500/- {Rs.9,375/- [Rs.7,500/- + Rs.1,875/- (25% of Rs.7,500/-)] X 12 X 14 X ½}. The further contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the respondents 2 to 4 are not dependants of the deceased is concerned, it is well settled that even married sons and married daughters are dependants of the deceased. In view of the same, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the respondents 2 to 4 are not the dependants of the deceased is not acceptable. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under conventional heads are just and reasonable and hence, the same are hereby confirmed. In view of the same, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the respondents 2 to 4 are not the dependants of the deceased is not acceptable. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under conventional heads are just and reasonable and hence, the same are hereby confirmed. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as follows: S. No Description Amount awarded by Tribunal (Rs) Amount awarded by this Court (Rs) Award confirmed or enhanced or granted 1. Loss of dependency 10,50,000/- 7,87,500/- Reduced 2. Loss of love and affection 40,000/- 40,000/- Confirmed 3. Loss of estate 15,000/- 15,000/- Confirmed 4. Funeral expenses 15,000/- 15,000/- Confirmed Total Rs.11,20,000/- Rs.8,57,500/- Reduced by Rs.2,62,500/- 12.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.11,20,000/- is hereby reduced to Rs.8,57,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The 5th respondent and appellant-Insurance Company are jointly and severally directed to deposit the modified award amount now determined by this Court along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.798 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, III Additional District Judge (FAC), Puducherry. On such deposit, the respondents 2 to 4 are permitted to withdraw their respective share of the award amount now determined by this Court, as per the ratio of apportionment fixed by the Tribunal, along with proportionate interest and costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn by making necessary applications before the Tribunal. The appellant-Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw the award amount lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.798 of 2013, if the award amount has already been deposited by them. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 submitted that the 1st respondent/Mother of the deceased Nadana Sabapathy died. It is open to the respondents 2 to 4 to file necessary applications before the Tribunal to withdraw the award amount apportioned for 1st respondent. Consequently the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.