M. C. Jain. J ( 1 ) ( 2 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. ( 3 ) WE have perused the award of the Tribunal and the order of thelearned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge did not interfere in the awardof compensation. It may be stated that Counsel for the appellant confines thisappeal to the question of compensation only and gives up the issue relating tonegligence. ( 4 ) THE only issue that requires consideration is as to whether theamount of compensation awarded is on the higher side. According to thecounsel for the appellant, the learned Tribunal was wrong in adopting themultiplier as 40 and the Courts below are also wrong in taking Rs. 1000. 00 asthe monthly income of the deceased Harminder Singh. ( 5 ) WE have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for theappellant. However, we find ourselves unable to agree with the same. Thedeceased Harminder Singh was aged about 30 years on the date of accident. He was survived by four minor children and his mother. The only evidence onthe record which is to be believed, is that the deceased was having an incomeof Rs. 1000. 00 and was spending a sum of Rs. 250. 00 on himself and the rest onhis family. ( 6 ) SO far as the question of multiplier is concerned, we do not agreewith the learned Counsel for the appellant that a higher multiplier was adopted. Even if it is on a little higher side still, in our opinion, having regard to thefacts and circumstances of the case, it does not call for any interference in thisappeal. In the result we find no infirmity in the impugned order and the appealis interefere dismissed.