Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-These three appeals are directed against the common Judgment and award dated 31st July, 2002, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand (for short ‘the Tribunal’ hereinafter referred to) in Claim Cases No. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of 2001, whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 2,80,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 2,80,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/-and Rs. 1,00,000/-respectively. Aggrieved by the common Judgment and award, appellant Ms. Jayotsana aged about 16 years and her grand-father Badarmal filed separate appeals, challenging the award passed in all these cases. These three appeals are directed against award passed in Claim Cases No. 5, 6 and 8 of 2001. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellants. 2. Briefly stated facts to the extent they are relevant and necessary for the decision of these appeals are that on 011.2000, a maruti car bearing No. RJ-14/1C 9608 met an accident with bus owned by respondent Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’ hereinafter referred to) near to Kakroli. Due to the said accident Smt. Sakuntala, Ashok Kumar aged about 38 years, minor children Lucky aged about 8 years, Kumari Seema aged 14 years and Kumari Bulbul aged 12 years died and the car in which they were travelling was damaged. 3. Appellant Ms. Jayotsana, daughter of Ashok Kumar and Sakuntala, sister of Kumari Seema, Kumari Bulbul and Lucky alongwith grand-father Badarmal filed claim petitions before the Tribunal being legal representatives of the deceased persons. 4. On appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident in question was due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Corporation’s bus, respondent No. 2 Israr Ahmed. While making the assessment of the compensation the Tribunal in all awarded Rs. 9,60,000/-in favour of the claimants as noticed above. 5. In the case of death of Lucky aged about 8 years, Kumari Bulbul aged 12 years and Kumari Seema aged 14 years, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-each as compensation, thus in these three cases a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-was awarded. In the case of death of Ashok Kumar and Smt. Sakuntala the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,80,000/-each in favour of the claimants and for damage of maruti car a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. 6. 1,00,000/-each as compensation, thus in these three cases a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-was awarded. In the case of death of Ashok Kumar and Smt. Sakuntala the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,80,000/-each in favour of the claimants and for damage of maruti car a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. 6. It is contended by learned Counsel for the appellants that the compensation in all awarded to the tune of Rs. 9,60,000/-, in favour of two claimant is on lower side. 7. I have carefully gone through the Judgment and award impugned and the material available with the learned Counsel. The Tribunal having considered the fact that none of the deceased persons were on stable income and no documentary evidence was produced by the claimants. Deceased Ashok Kumar aged about 38 years was said to have been engaged in garment shop and also working in marble. Witness AW -2 Badarmal stated that Ashok Kumar was paying income tax or not he does not know. There is no evidence showing his marble business. However, he stated that he himself has garment shop and the deceased used to work on that Shop. there is no evidence to establish that he was on stable income but one thing is clear that deceased Ashok Kumar was assisting his father appellant No. 2 Badrmal in running garment shop but his annual income has not been disclosed, so much so appellant No. 2 has not produced any record or any relevant material to show the income from garment shop. Obviously, the income as claimed in the claim petition by the claimants was not correct. Deceased Sakuntala was a house wife and had no stable income, except doing domestic services as house wife. Lucky aged 8 years, Kumari Bulbul aged 12 years and Kumari Seema aged 14 years all minors and were not the earning members. Having taken into account overall dependency and the fact that the deceased person were to incur expenses on their living including expenses incurred for the brought up and schooling of the three minor deceased. The Tribunal awarded compensation as noticed above in all Rs. 9,60,000/-with interest @ 9% per annum. So far as three minors are concerned, they would not have contributed anything to the claimants even after attaining their majority, as by the time appellant No. 1 must have married as she is higher in age then those deceased minors. The Tribunal awarded compensation as noticed above in all Rs. 9,60,000/-with interest @ 9% per annum. So far as three minors are concerned, they would not have contributed anything to the claimants even after attaining their majority, as by the time appellant No. 1 must have married as she is higher in age then those deceased minors. So far as appellant No. 2 is concerned, he is grand-father of the deceased minors. Looking to his age, there was hardly any possibility to the contribution to him for the reasons that these three minors would not have been earning persons at least for any 10 to 12 years. So far as contribution of Ashok Kumar and Sakuntala is concerned, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,80,000/-in each case in favour of the claimants and for the minors a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-in each cases. The dependency determined and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at any rate cannot be said to be on lower side. 8. It is settled law that in appeal quantum is interfered if the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is shockingly low or too excessive, as the case may be. Obviously, a sum of Rs. 9,60,000/-in all awarded by the Tribunal with the interest at the rate of 9% from the date of claim application cannot be said to be too low, on the contrary, it is just and proper. Hence, calls for no interference. 9. No other point was argued. 10. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in these appeals. Accordingly, they fail and are hereby dismissed summarily.