JUDGMENT 1. - The claimant-appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment/award dated 26.10.1994 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur. 2. The brief facts are that a truck DL1G 6425 driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1 hit Dr. Ramjilal Meena from behind near Dhand at about 8.00 p.m. on 27.11.1991 when the latter was going by motorcycle RPI 1632 from Jaipur to Shyampura. Dr. Ramjilal Meena died due to multiple injuries suffered by him in the accident. After hearing the parties the learned Tribunal by judgment dated 26.10.1994 passed an award of Rs. 5,20,360 in favour of the appellants. Aggrieved by this judgment/award the claimant-appellants have filed this appeal. 3. Mr. K.N. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration future prospects of the deceased while assessing loss of income and a multiplier of 12 has been adopted whereas looking to the age of the deceased the appropriate multiplier is 15. He has, therefore, prayed for enhancement of the compensation amount. 4. Mr. P.K. Kasliwal, learned Counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment/award of the learned Tribunal. 5. In Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. v. S. Rajapriya and two Ors., II (2005) ACC 476 : 2005 (1) WLC (SC) Civil 732 : 2005 (2) TAC 305 , the deceased was about 38 years of age and was getting monthly salary of Rs. 4,688 (56,208 annually) and after deducting ⅓rd for personal expenses the dependency was fixed at Rs. 37,472/- per annum. Hon'ble Supreme Court without taking future prospects into consideration adopted a multiplier of 12 reducing it from 16 and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,50,000 (in round figures). Now in this case the age of the deceased is about 40 years and a multiplier of 12 has been adopted. I do not think that in the facts and circumstances of the case the multiplier adopted by the learned Tribunal is in any way inappropriate or there is any justification to assess the average income on ground of future prospects. The amount awarded as compensation to the claimant-appellants is just and fair and there is no reason to take a different view in the matter. 6. There is thus no ground for interference. 7. Consequently, the appeal fails which is dismissed accordingly.Appeal dismissed. *******