JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 25th 1 February, 1997 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagaur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,52,800/- in favour of respondent-claimants (tor short 'the claimants') and against the appellants and respondent No. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award impugned, the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short the Corporation') has filed the instant appeal. 2. Briefly stated. facts which are relevant and necessary for decision of this appeal, are that on 24th January', 1995 at midnight, deceased Nichhetar to Singh aged 27 years, a cleaner (Khalasi) on Truck No. RNG-898 was going to Kuchaman check post for payment of octroi. At that relevant time, bus bearing No. RJ-04-P-0082 owned by the Corporation came from Daulatpura side, which was being driven rashly and negligently and at a great speed by its driver respondent No. 5 Ganpat Lal, hit Nichhetar Singh. Due to the said is accident, Nichhetar Singh sustained severe injuries. He was immediately taken to Banged Hospital at Deedwana for treatment, where he succumbed to the injuries. Legal representatives of deceased Nichhetar Singh filed a claim for compensation before the Tribunal. On appreciation of evidence produced by the parties, the Tribunal held that the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver respondent No. 5 Ganpat Lal, which was owned by the Corporation. While computing the compensation, the Tribunal in all awarded Rs. 1,52,800/- in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award impugned. I have also carefully gone. through the record of the Tribunal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal fell in error in holding the bus driver respondent No. 5 Ganpat Lal responsible for to the said accident. It was further contended that the accident in question took place at about 12 in the midnight and there being dark and deceased Nichhetar Singh was crossing road in order to reach check post for payment of octroi and, therefore, deceased himself was negligent for the said accident as due to dark the deceased could not see the bus. 5. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal fell in error in determining the multiplier. 5. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal fell in error in determining the multiplier. The deceased being Helper (Khalasi), the income of Rs. 1200/- per month determined by the Tribunal is, excessive and lastly he contended that the deceased was not a permanent employee as he was on seasonal employment and, therefore, the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is on higher side. 6. Learned counsel for the claimants supported the judgment of the Tribunal 7. Before the Tribunal, the claimants produced PW-1 Amarjeet Singh. PW-2 Gurdeep Kaur and PW-3 Dilip Singh. PW-1 Arnarjeet Singh deposed before the Tribunal on oath that he, along with cleaner (Khalasi) Nichhetar Singh was proceeding to Amritsar (Punjab) on 24th January, 1995 after loading marble from Makrana. The said marble was loaded in truck bearing No. RNG-898. There was another truck bearing No. RNG-565, which was also loaded with marble to be transported to Amritsar. Both the trucks stopped at Deedwana check post in order to pay octroi. Cleaner Nichhetar Singh went to pay the octroi at check post. When he was standing near the check post, a bus bearing No. RJ-04-P-0082 came from Daulatpura side at a great speed and hit Nichhetar Singh. He was immediately taken to hospital but he succumbed to the injuries. The bus was owned by the Corporation. A crime report (Ex.1) was lodged with Police Station, Deedwana. He further stated that the driver of truck No. RNG-565 and Khalasi thereof were also standing near the check post. He specifically denied that deceased Nichhetar Singh suddenly crossed the road and came in front of the bus; on the contrary, he deposed that the deceased was standing near the check post when he was hit by the said bus. The remaining two witnesses are not the eye witnesses. The Corporation or its bus driver have not led any evidence and as such claimants' evidence remain un-controverted. The Tribunal on proper appreciation of evidence, reached to the conclusion that the deceased was hit by the bus owned by the Corporation while he was standing near the check post. Thus. The remaining two witnesses are not the eye witnesses. The Corporation or its bus driver have not led any evidence and as such claimants' evidence remain un-controverted. The Tribunal on proper appreciation of evidence, reached to the conclusion that the deceased was hit by the bus owned by the Corporation while he was standing near the check post. Thus. the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that the deceased was crossing the road and he suddenly came in front of the bus, is without foundation and, therefore, cannot be sustained and therefore the finding of the Tribunal holding bus driver negligent and responsible for the said accident is based on cogent and reliable evidence and thus, I am of the view that finding of the Tribunal holding the bus driver negligent, cannot be said to be perverse and illegal and, therefore, calls for no interference. 8. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 15 years' purchase factor for the death of a young person of 27 years, which cannot be said to be excessive. The Tribunal observed that the claimants have failed to produce employer the owner of the truck and, therefore, the income as disclosed by the claimants was held to be not proved. However, taking into account the fact that deceased was a cleaner (Khalasi) on he truck, it determined the income of the deceased at Rs. 1200/- per month. As such the annual income was determined at Rs. 14,400/- and this amount was multiplied by the multiplier of 15 years' purchase factor, which comes to Rs. 2,16,000/-, out of this amount Tribunal to deducted ⅓ as personal expenses of the deceased and determined the dependency of Rs. 1,45,8001- The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- under the head mental agony and Rs. 2000/- for funeral expenses. Thus, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 1.52,800/- which cannot be said to be excessive. More so, in appeal the quantum of is compensation is interfered with if the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate or too excessive, as the case may be. Obviously, for the death of a young person of 27 years, compensation of Rs. 1,52,800/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be too excessive, hence, calls for no interference. 9. No other point was argued. 10. Obviously, for the death of a young person of 27 years, compensation of Rs. 1,52,800/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be too excessive, hence, calls for no interference. 9. No other point was argued. 10. In view of aforesaid, I do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.Appeal Dismissed. *******