JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the award dated 31.10.1984 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur. 2. On 24.2.1978 Jethusingh was going on the Residency Road on a bicycle. A truck was being driven by Edu Khan appellant coming from the opposite side. The same was being driven at a high speed rashly and negligently and hit Jethusingh deceased. 3. A petition claiming Rs. 2,61,600/- was filed by the Mother, the father, the widow and the three minor children of the deceased under various heads and the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim of the widow, mother and father but allowed the claim of the heirs who have been impleaded as respondents No. 2, 4 and 5 and an amount of Rs. 26,400/- was awarded to each of them. This amount was awarded against the appellant and also against the respondent No. 1 owner of the truck and respondent No. 2 i.e. the National Insurance Co. 4. An appeal was initially filed by Edu Khan the driver of the truck and later Kaloo Khan respondent No. 1 owner of the truck was transposed and impleaded as co-appellant in the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the witnesses examined were highly interested, the entire claim was time-barred and the learned Tribunal has given no good reasons for condoning the delay and that the amount awarded is exorbitant. It is also stated by the learned counsel that soon after the death of the deceased, his widow Smt. Shakuntala has been employed in the department in place of the deceased on compassionate grounds and the children were not without food and shelter. The family, argues the learned counsel has not suffered any financial loss and the compensation awarded deserves to be quashed. 6. It may be noticed here that the claim petition filed by the widow, father and mother has been held to be time barred by the learned Tribunal and consequently the same was dismissed. Admittedly, no appeal has been filed by either of them in this Court which would mean that they are not aggrieved against the non-suiting them by the learned Tribunal. It is the claim, of the minor children which is being disputed by the appellant. It is further not disputed that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs. 550/- per month and was aged only 35 years. It is the claim, of the minor children which is being disputed by the appellant. It is further not disputed that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs. 550/- per month and was aged only 35 years. The learned Tribunal after examining the evidence and calculating the amount which the deceased might be spending on these children came to a finding that it would be appropriate to employ the multiplier of 110x12x20 and thus, arrived at a figure of Rs. 26,400/- to be payable to each child. This again is an admitted position that the liability of the respondent No. 2 i.e. Insurance Company has been fixed at Rs. 16,666.33 for each child. 7. I have carefully gone through paras 22 and 23 at page 12 of the impugned award whereby a finding qua the quantum of compensation has been arrived at. It is further not disputed that the Insurance Co. has paid its share of the amount and for that there is no quarrel. The appellant thus, have been burdened with a liability of approximately Rs. 10,000/- to be given to each of the children, and in my view this amount does not appear to be excessive. 8. No other point has been stressed. After having given 'my thoughtful consideration to the matter and the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties I don't find that the impugned award suffers from any illegality, impropriety, error of jurisdiction or misreading of the evidence. The award appears to be just and proper. 9. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is called for. The appeal is consequently ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.Appeal Dismissed. *******