CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in M. V. C. No. 207/88 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, bangalore Rural. ( 2 ) ONE Chikkanna with a friend of his by name Venkatesh were coming on the national highway No. 4 from Tumkur side towards bangalore. Chikkanna was riding his Motor Vehicle and Venkatesh was his pillion. The bus bearing registration No. MYF 7415 belonged to the ap pellant was proceeding from Nelemangala to tumkur. In an attempt to overtake a lorry which was going in the same direction it came in collusion with the motor cycle as a result Chikkanna and Venkatesh sustained injuries and to which they later succumbed. In that behalf petitioners in M. V. C. 207/88 being the brothers and sister of Chikkanna preferred the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- on the ground that Chikkanna was earning Rs. 2,000/- per mensum. On the evidence led which was mostly oral it was established that he belonged to the joint family of the petitioners and that he was earning by selling milk and that he had cows which they had sold after the death for Rs. 8,000/ -. He was also working as a Secretary of Milk Production co-operative Society and drawing his pay of Rs. 150/- per mensum. Taking in overall consideration the learned Presiding Officer, motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, keeps the net contribution to the family by the deceased chikkanna Rs. 500/- per mensum. Unfortunately the judge claiming to apply the ruling of this Court in H. T. Bhandary v Muniyamma, ILR 1985 (2) kar. 2337, chose the multiplier at 12 having regard to the age of Chikkanna which was supposed to be 30 and 35. He further reduced the multiplier by two number because the first petitioner was elder than the claimant. This principle is not enunciated in Bhandary's case of this Court. The learned Presiding Officer has not given due consideration either to the principles enunciated in Bhandary's case or to the facts of the case pleaded before him. We do not think to make any other observation than this. In the net result he chose 10 as the multiplier and fixed net annual income at Rs. 6,000/ -. He multiplied the same by 10 and awarded Rs. 60,000/ -. He has awarded a sum of Rs. We do not think to make any other observation than this. In the net result he chose 10 as the multiplier and fixed net annual income at Rs. 6,000/ -. He multiplied the same by 10 and awarded Rs. 60,000/ -. He has awarded a sum of Rs. 6,000/- as other expenses towards obsequies and loss to estate which cannot be said to be too high. ( 3 ) BEFORE us the appellant contended that the amount awarded is excessive because there is no evidence that the net contribution by the deceased Chikkanna to the family was in the sum of Rs. 500/ -. An agriculturist or a milk vendor keeping a village dairy and working part time as secretary of the co-operative society cannot be expected to leave behind any records in writing which would establish his monthly or annual income. By and large the income earned by the agriculturist on the average in this Country is far below the national average. But when specific cases come up before the Court and brothers or other relatives or dependents of the deceased speak to the approximate income and the presiding Officer goes by the average agricultural wage per day we cannot say such an approach is as arbitrary or is in wanting any proper evidence. If we apply the rigorous tests of rules of evidence in determining the income of the agricultural labour and a village dairy keeper it would be impossible to produce an accurate income as it is common knowledge that none maintains accounts of their earnings in their villages. ( 4 ) IN that circumstance we do not find any error in the reasoning of the Presiding Officer in arriving at the approximate income and his contribution to the family despite the errors committed by the Presiding Officer in arriving at the multiplier. We feel that it was the claimants who lost by the Judgment and not the appellant. We find no merit in the appeal and it is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. --- *** --- .