JUDGMENT P. D. Desai, J.—There is no substance in this appeal and it deserves summary dismissal. 2. The vehicle involved in the accident was a passenger bus. It was being reversed within the premises of the workshop at the material time when it knocked down (he deceased as a result of which he sustained fatal injuries. The Tribunal has given cogent and convincing reasons for holding against the appellant on the issue of negligence. I do not think that there is any error of law or fact which vitiates the finding on the issue of negligence. Under the circumstances, the finding on the said issue must be up-held. 3. The deceased was aged about 32. His income was found to be Rs. 600 per month. The datum figure was worked out at Rs. 400 per month The multiplier of 18 was applied. The compensation in the sum of Rs. 90,000 (inclusive of the conventional damages for the loss of expectation of life) awarded on the said basis cannot be regarded as excessive so as to warrant interference in appeal. The finding on the said issue is also thus unassailable. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant urged that the sum of Rs. 11,000 received by the concerned respondents (original claimants) by way of insurance benefit is liable to be deducted while assessing damages for the financial loss arising out of the death resulting from the accident. The submission cannot be accepted, since the proceeds of insurance are to be disregarded in computing compensation (See: Arunaben and others v. Mehmoodbhai Imanali Kaji and others, AIR 19cv3 Guj 10. The appeal is, therefore, summarily dismissed. Appeal dismissed.