QURESHI, J. ( 1 ) ONE tractor bearing registration No. MPN 7630 with trolley bearing registration No. MPN 7681 was being driven by appellant No. 2 Ratansingh on 6-1-1981 on the Ujjain Maksi road going from Ujjain side to Maksi side. One Hiralal was working as a labourer and for that reason he was travelling in the trolley along with other labourers. On the way, the tractor and trolley turned turtle. Hiralal was pressed under the trolley and received injuries to which he succumbed. The respondents are the wife, son and daughters of the said Hiralal. ( 2 ) THE respondents filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shajapur claiming compensation against all the three appellants of Rs. 1,21,000/- on the ground that at the time of the accident, the tractor was being driven by the appellant No. 2 Ratansingh rashly and negligently due to which the accident took place. The appellant No. 1 being the owner of the tractor trolley and the appellant No. 3 being the insurer on the date of accident were vicariously liable for paying the compensation. ( 3 ) THE learned Tribunal found that the deceased died due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor by the appellant No. 2. At the time of his death, the deceased was about 40 years old and was earning about Rs. 400/- per month. Therefore, it awarded respondents, aggrieved by which the appellants preferred this appeal. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants Shri B. K. Samdani, assailed the finding of the Tribunal on the ground that there is no evidence on record to show that the deceased was earning Rs. 400/- per month. According to Shri Samdani, he was an ordinary labourer and he could not earn that much amount. The age as decided by the Tribunal of the deceased Hiralal has also been disputed. According to the learned counsel, his age was about 50 years and not 40 years as held by the Tribunal. The finding of negligence has also been challenged on the ground that the accident was inevitable in view of the circumstances of the case. Respondent No. 1 appeared in person on behalf of all the respondents. According to the learned counsel, his age was about 50 years and not 40 years as held by the Tribunal. The finding of negligence has also been challenged on the ground that the accident was inevitable in view of the circumstances of the case. Respondent No. 1 appeared in person on behalf of all the respondents. As regards the negligence of the driver resulting in the accident, we find that the applicants' witness No. 2 Vimalchantira has stated that the tractor was being driven at a fast speed. He has not been cross-examined on this point by the appellants. Appellant No. 2 Ratansingh has also admitted in his statement that he had seen the buffalo from a distance of about 100 paces. He further admits that the labourers travelling in the trolley had asked him to drive the tractor slowly and the road was slippery because of the rains. The statement of Ratansingh (appellant No. 2) along with the statement of Vimalchandra clearly goes to show that despite the road being slippery the appellant No. 2 was driving the tractor at a fast speed and although he had seen the buffalo from a distance of 100 paces but tried to save it only when the tractor came near it resulting in the accident. Therefore, the finding of the learned Tribunal on this point is in consonance with the evidence on record and appears to be proper. ( 5 ) AS regards the amount of compensation, Sampatbai (P. W. 1) has stated in her statement that all the family was dependent on Hiralal. He was selling readymade clothes in the Hat and also working as labourer in the tractor. According to her, he was earning Rs. 1000/- per month. It was suggested in cross-examination that her husband was earning only Rs. 500/- per month to which she denied. Vimalchandra (P. W. 2) in his statement says that Hiralal was earning about Rs. 500/- per month. Therefore, the finding of the learned Tribunal that Hiralal was earning Rs. 400/- per month cannot be held contrary to the evidence on record. The evidence does not suffer from any infirmity and there is nothing contrary on the record to hold that Hiralal was earning less than what has been stated by the witnesses. However, the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 400/- per month. 400/- per month cannot be held contrary to the evidence on record. The evidence does not suffer from any infirmity and there is nothing contrary on the record to hold that Hiralal was earning less than what has been stated by the witnesses. However, the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 400/- per month. As such, the appellants cannot have any grievance about the finding of the learned Tribunal pertaining to the income of the deceased Hiralal. In view of the fact that the deceased was about 40 years of age at the time of his death and respondent No. 1 was only 35 years with minor children to support including three daughters, the compensation awarded to the respondent-claimants cannot be held to be excessive. Even if the statement of respondent No. 1 about the age of her husband may be taken into consideration, the multiplier of 15 adopted by the Tribunal is neither unreasonable nor arbitrary. ( 6 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no force in this appeal. It is accordingly disallowed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal as incurred. Appeal disallowed. .