JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 22.7.1994 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bali (for short the Tribunal' hereinafter) whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,60,000/- in favour of the respondent-claimants No. 1 and 2 (in short, the claimants' hereinafter) and against the appellant Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'the Corporation' hereinafter). Aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and award impugned the Corporation has preferred this appeal. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Peruse the judgment impugned and carefully gone through the record of the Tribunal. 3. Deceased Nemaram was travelling in the bus owned by the Corporation bearing No. RJ-14/P-0813 as passenger on 26.5.1992. While the said bus was plying on the road Takhatgarh-Sumerpur and it reached near Binthiya Head, Balpupura, at that time, the said bus was being driven at great 15 speed rashly and negligently by its driver respondent Deen Mohammed. The bus turned turtle and the occupants of the bus received serious injuries As many as 4 persons including Nemaram scumbled to the injuries instantaneously and many others sustained injuries. The legal representatives of deceased Nema Ram and other claimants filed their respective claim 20 petitions before the Tribunal. On appreciation of the evidence produced before the Tribunal it reached to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the bus owned by the Corporation. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,60,000/- in favour of the present claimants. 4. The only point argued by learned counsel for the appellant is that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is too excessive. 5. I have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties. Perused the post mortem report Ex.5 and statements of AW 1 Lasi and AW 2 Bagda Ram. 6. AW 1 Lasi, widow of the deceased deposed on oath before the Tribunal that at the time of accident her husband was 48 years of age and he was a healthy person having 22 bigha agricultural land. She further stated that her husband Nema Ram was running a provision shop by which he used to earn Rs. 20001- per month. Ex.5 reveals that deceased Nema Ram was about 50 years of age when he died in the accident. Thus the age of the deceased was sufficiently established before the Tribunal. She further stated that her husband Nema Ram was running a provision shop by which he used to earn Rs. 20001- per month. Ex.5 reveals that deceased Nema Ram was about 50 years of age when he died in the accident. Thus the age of the deceased was sufficiently established before the Tribunal. The Tribunal determined the dependency taking the age of the deceased to be 55 years at the time of the accident at the rate of Rs. 18,000/- per annum. AW Lasi stated in clear terms that the deceased had 22 bighas agricultural land having a well and the deceased cultivated the said land. Thus the land owned by the deceased was an irrigated land. The witness also stated that the deceased was running a provision shop by which he used to earn Rs. 2.0001- every month. The evidence of the claimant remained unrebutted before the Tribunal. The appellant did not controvert the statement of AW 1 Lasi. The Tribunal computed loss of income from agriculture to the extent of Rs, 1,20,000/- and Rs. 27,0001- from the provision shop. It also awarded a sum of Rs. 13,000/- for loss of company and consortium etc. The annual dependency was multiplied by the multiplier of 10 years' purchase factor. 7. It is settled law that in appeal the quantum is interfered with only if the compensation award is too low or is too excessive, as the case may be. Obviously, a sum of Rs. 1,63.000/- cannot be said to be too excessive. Even if the age of the deceased is taken to be 55 years and appropriate multiplier is applied, the sum computed cannot be said to be too excessive. It is settled law that in the age group of 50-55 years the appropriate multiplier can be 11 years purchase factor. The Tribunal has computed loss of income from the shop to be Rs. 27,000/- only which appears to be otherwise too low and: therefore, if the actual income of the deceased from the provision shop were to be taken into account the income of the deceased would be much higher there resulting in escalation of the annual dependency as well. 8. No other point was argued. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no error or infirmity in the judgment impugned. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.Appeal Dismissed. *******