Judgment Arun Madan, J.-This is a Miscellaneous appeal against the award dated 30.6.1998 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Baran in Claim Case No. 78 of 1997, whereby claim was allowed for compensation for a sum of Rs. 4,59,000 with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till payment thereof in favour of claimants, who are dependants (mother, wife, minor three sons and one daughter) of Rampal Meena who died in a motor accident, which took place on 24.1997 while travelling in the appellant Corporation’s bus No. RJ-14/2030 from Bamla to Baran. 2. Heard Mr. Sudesh Bansal for Mr. R.D. Rastogi, learned Counsel for the appellant Corporation. The impugned award is assailed on three counts, inter alia, (1) that, the multiplier of 17 has not been correctly applied by the Tribunal in view of the fact that the age of deceased was 30 years though post-mortem report states his age as 35 years, (2) that it was a case of contributory negligence of the passenger-deceased and the conductor of the bus whereas Tribunal held the conductor negligent and liable for the death of deceased Rampal; and (3) that in the presence of evidence of Mathuralal (AW 2), who in cross-examination deposed to have supplied only 10 litres milk per day to Rampal for his use in tea-stall, Rampal could not be held to have earned Rs. 3,000 per month if other expenses like sugar, tea and incidental expenses for running tea-stall are taken into account. 3. After having considered the arguments canvassed by Mr. R.D. Rastogi and perused the findings recorded under the impugned award, prima facie, I am of the view that none of the contentions of the appellant hold any merit to admit this appeal because the case of contributory negligence was neither pleaded nor proved on record by the appellant Corporation before the Tribunal and moreover, death of Rampal stands proved from the evidence on record that since bus gate lock being defective and it having not been properly locked, Rampal who was made to stand at one of steps of the staircase to the bus exit door, had fallen down on the road as the bus was being driven so rashly that its driver could not stop immediately which resulted in causing death of Rampal. It was prime duty of the driver and conductor to lock the exit gate either before giving whistle to move or during operation/driving of the vehicle and having failed to do so, the bus owner and the servants employed to operate it, are certainly liable for the accident having taken place as a result of the defect in the bus body or its gate or gate lock. Having failed to do so, as proved on record, the Tribunal was right in holding the driver, conductor and bus owner, viz., appellant Corporation liable jointly and severally for the death of Rampal in the accident in question. 4. Similarly, it was neither pleaded nor proved in evidence by the appellant Corporation as to the controversy of age and income of the victim as is being raised before this Court. Only evidence adduced and available on record in this regard consists of (1) post-mortem report: of the deceased as to his age and (2) statement of the claimant (AW 1) and Mathuralal (AW 2) as to the income of the deceased from his tea-stall. 5. The Tribunal on the basis of the postmortem report held the age of victim as 35 years at the time of his death in accident and accordingly applied multiplier of 17, which in my view, was rightly assessed. If the age of victim is assessed as 30 years in view of statement of his wife claimant (AW 1), then according to Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, multiplier of 18 would be applied. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the contention of Mr. Sudesh Bansal. 6. As regards income assessed by the Tribunal, in my view, the Tribunal has rightly assessed Rs. 3,000 per month as income of the victim from his tea-stall on the basis of statements of his wife claimant (AW 1) and Mathuralal (AW 2), who have proved that victim used to earn Rs. 3,000 per month. The Corporation has failed to adduce any evidence to controvert the monthly income of Rs. 3,000 from tea-stall. In my considered view, a tea-stall keeper who is found to have purchased and consumed 10 litres of milk per day in his tea-stall can be held to have earned at least Rs. 100 per day from his customers and Rs. The Corporation has failed to adduce any evidence to controvert the monthly income of Rs. 3,000 from tea-stall. In my considered view, a tea-stall keeper who is found to have purchased and consumed 10 litres of milk per day in his tea-stall can be held to have earned at least Rs. 100 per day from his customers and Rs. 100 per day income for a tea-stall keeper cannot be said to be excessive in the light of the evidence on record rather it is on lower side. Hence, I do not find any ground to accept the contention of Mr. Bansal. 7. I am of the view that Where the Tribunal has given detailed reasoning for its findings and conclusions for passing the award and making the concerned liable to pay compensation and if the impugned award is not palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous and demonstrably unsustainable, the appellate Court may broadly agree with the conclusions and findings of the learned Tribunal. 8. I am fortified by the decision in Girijanandini Devi v. Brijendra Narain Choudhary AIR 1967 SC 1124 , wherein the Apex Court observed as under: It is not the duty of the appellate Court when it agrees with the view of the trial Court on the evidence either to restate the effect of evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial Court. Expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court decision of which is under appeal would ordinarily suffice. 9. Thus, it is not necessary for the appellate Court to reiterate the reasons given by the Tribunal or the trial Court and to repeat the narration of evidence if in agreement with the findings and conclusions arrived at by the learned Tribunal approving its reasoning. 10. Thus viewed, the findings of fact on all counts referred to above, arrived at by the Tribunal based on well appreciation of evidence on record, do not warrant interference in this appeal of the Corporation. As a result of the above discussion, this appeal must fail and is hereby dismissed at admission stage.