In the present appeal, the Insurance Company has challenged the award only on the ground that the compensation awarded to the claimants is excessive and arbitrary and the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal i.e. 8% per annum calculated from the date of filling the claim petition is also arbitrary. It was argued by the counsel for the appellant that in column 6 of the claim petition, the claimant has stated the income of the deceased to be Rs. 15,000/- per annum and, therefore, the Tribunal had acted arbitrarily in determining the compensation on the basis of a notional income of Rs. 20,000/- per annum. It was also argued by the counsel for the appellant that the deceased was a bachelor and, therefore, while determining the multiplication 50% should have been deducted as personal expenses from the notional income of the deceased and the Tribunal had erred in deducting only 1/3 as personal expenses of the deceased. It was argued that in view of the aforesaid, the award of the Tribunal is liable to be modified by reducing the compensation payable to the claimant., Rebutting the argument of the counsel for the appellant, the counsel for the claimant has argued that the income of the deceased was stated to be Rs. 15,000/- per annum column 6 of the claim petition on the basis of the notional income provided in paragraph 6 of the IInd Schedule. It was argued by the counsel for the claimant that under Section 168 of the Act,1988, the Tribunal is required to hold an enquiry into the claim and award just compensation and the compensation payable to the claimants would not be reduced because a lesser amount was claimed as compensation in the claim petition. In support of his cross-objection, the counsel for the claimant has argued that from the evidence on record it was proved that at the time of his death, the deceased was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month and, therefore, the Tribunal had acted arbitrarily in determining compensation on the basis of a notional income of Rs. 20,000/- per annum. It was also argued by the counsel for the claimant that the multiplier has to be decided considering the age of the deceased and not the age of the parents of the deceased. It was further argued that the Tribunal had also erred in not awarding any amount to the claimant for funeral expenses and loss of estate as well as for loss of love and affection. It was further argued by the counsel for the claimant that the claimant was entitled to interest of 12% per annum and the award of the Tribunal awarding merely 8% per annum as interest of liable to be modified. Thus it is held that the deceased was unemployed and the argument of the counsel of the claimant that compensation should be determined taking the income of the deceased as Rs. 5000/- p.m. is rejected. The notional income of the deceased and the consequential compensation payable to the claimant is decided later on in the judgement. Submit