avocation of the deceased. But it has to be borne in mind that the accident was in the year 2011. Considering the age of the deceased, the prevailing economic situation as on the date of the accident and the cost of living index, the income could have been considered by the Tribunal on a higher platform. While examining the quantum of compensation awarded, the figures can be worked out in another manner as well. Even though it could be said that 50% of the income should have been treated as personal expense, the remaining 50% would have been available either as contribution to family or it should have been earmarked as part of estate. The modified income to be reckoned under such circumstance, according to us, is 6,000/- per₹ month and if the calculation is made accordingly, the figure comes to ₹6,000X12X50/100X9= 3,24,000/-. The amount awarded by the₹ Tribunal reckoning 4,500/- and deducting only 1/3₹ rd towards personal expenses, is: ₹4,500X12X1/3X9 = ₹3,24,000/-. There is no difference at all and as such, we do not find it necessary to hold that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the above head is excessive in any manner and the same does not require any variation. 7. Coming to the sustainability of figures awarded under different heads, it is seen that the accident occurred was on 2.11.2011, whereas the death occurred was on 17.11.2011. No amount has been awarded towards bystander's expenses. We find it
