ORDER : Ganesh Ram Meena, J. 1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant-insurance company with a challenge to judgment dated 30.10.2017, passed by the Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal, Ajmer (for short, 'the Tribunal') in Claim Petition No. 469/2016, filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, whereby the claim petition was allowed and the Tribunal had allowed compensation to the tune of Rs.10,79,050/- with interest of 6% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 23.10.2016. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the loss of income on account of death of the deceased as the business which was being run by the deceased has now been taken over by his son, who is continuing with the business and therefore it cannot be said that there is a loss of income. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal has determined the yearly income on the basis of the average of the income of two financial years that are 2014-15 & 2015-16. He also submits that since the wife of the deceased was the only dependent, the deduction towards the personal expenditure was to be made 1/2 of the income, but the Tribunal made deduction of 1/3 only treating his major son as his dependent. 3. No one has put appearance on behalf of the respondents/claimants even after service of the notices. 4. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the appellant and also perused the record. 5. The first submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the deceased was a 'khadim'. After his death, his son has now taken over the work of 'khadim' and is continuing in earning the income to be received as a 'khadim' and therefore it cannot be said that there was a loss of income. 6. After the death of the deceased, the son has assumed the work of 'khadim'. If the deceased would have alive, he would have continued as a 'khadim' and his son who has assumed the work as 'khadim' may have started some other business and could have earned additional income and therefore it cannot be said because of the death of the deceased, there is no loss of income. 7. If the deceased would have alive, he would have continued as a 'khadim' and his son who has assumed the work as 'khadim' may have started some other business and could have earned additional income and therefore it cannot be said because of the death of the deceased, there is no loss of income. 7. The second submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that since the son of the deceased has already assumed the work of 'khadim' which the deceased was performing, there is no loss of income and therefore the determination of loss of income by the Tribunal is illegal. Since this Court has already observed that in actual there is a loss of income to the claimant because of death of the deceased, the second submission of the counsel for the appellant is not acceptable. 8. Learned counsel has further submitted that the Tribunal has made deduction only 1/3 of the income as personal expenditure, however, since only the wife was the dependent, the deduction should have been 1/2 of the income. There is no evidence on record that the son of the deceased who may be major was not the dependent of the deceased. In the case of Seema Rani & Ors. Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.2323/2025 decided on 11.02.2025 , vide para 10 has observed as follows:- “10. Adverting to the facts at hand, on a perusal of the statement of Shashi Kumar, the son of the deceased (Appellant No.2 herein), annexed as Annexure P6, was working at a petrol pump, while the other son was involved in temporary employment opportunities only. Both of them were residing with the deceased. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that they were self-sufficient or independent of the deceased. Similarly, applying the exposition in Birender (supra), there is no reason to exclude a married daughter from compensation. Therefore, in view of this, the High Court erred in excluding these dependants.” 9. Since there is no contrary evidence that the son of the deceased was not dependent on him, then the son would be treated to be the dependent and therefore the Tribunal has not committed any error in making deduction of 1/3 of the income as a personal expenditure. 10. Since there is no contrary evidence that the son of the deceased was not dependent on him, then the son would be treated to be the dependent and therefore the Tribunal has not committed any error in making deduction of 1/3 of the income as a personal expenditure. 10. In view of the discussions made above, the Court finds no error or illegality in the judgment passed by the Tribunal. Hence the appeal is dismissed having no merit.