JUDGMENT 1. - The claimant-appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment/award dated 14.2.1994 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that one Dr. Ajai Pal Singh was coming from Udaipur to Jaipur by bus RNP 777. When the bus was crossing the bridge near Bagru Police Station at about 5.30 a.m. on 8.7.1986 a truck from the opposite side also crossed the bridge and the two vehicles came so close that the head of Dr. Ajai Pal Singh which was a little outside the window was crushed. Dr. Ajai Pal Singh was taken to SMS Hospital, Jaipur where he was declared dead. Respondent No. 1 is the driver, respondent No. 2 is the owner and respondent No. 3 is the Insurance Company of the bus RNP 777. Appellant No. 1 is the wife, appellant No. 2 is the son and appellant Nos. 3 and 4 are the daughters of the deceased Ajai Pal Singh. After hearing the parties the learned Tribunal by judgment dated 14.2.1994 passed an award of Rs. 2,41,800 in favour of the appellants. Aggrieved by this judgment/award the claimants appellants have filed this appeal. 3. Mr. Sandeep Mathur, learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the income of the deceased Dr. Ajai Pal Singh has been assessed at lower side and a multiplier of 9 has been adopted whereas looking to the age of the deceased appropriate multiplier is 17. He has, therefore, prayed for enhancement of the compensation amount. He has placed reliance on 1998 (1) TAC 176 (Raj.). 4. Mr. Ravindra Pal Singh for Mr. J.K. Singh, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 has supported the judgment/award of the learned Tribunal. 5. The appellant Mrs. Kamlesh Saroha AW-3 has deposed that the salary of her husband at the time of his death was Rs. 1,600 per month and she admits in her cross-examination that she has been employed in place of her husband at a salary of Rs. 1,500 per month. Dr. Indrajeet Kumar Gupta A.W. 2 has stated that Dr. Ajai Pal Singh Saroha was posted as Research Associate on temporary basis and his total fixed salary including house rent allowance was Rs. 1,600 per month. He has proved the certificate Ex. 3 in this regard. 6. 1,500 per month. Dr. Indrajeet Kumar Gupta A.W. 2 has stated that Dr. Ajai Pal Singh Saroha was posted as Research Associate on temporary basis and his total fixed salary including house rent allowance was Rs. 1,600 per month. He has proved the certificate Ex. 3 in this regard. 6. It is, therefore, clear that the monthly salary of the deceased Dr. Ajai Pal Singh Saroha at the time of his death was Rs. 1,500 only excluding Rs. 100 of house rent allowance. The learned Tribunal taking into consideration future prospects of the deceased who was a temporary employee at a fixed salary assessed his average income as Rs. 3,000 per month. The learned Tribunal thereafter instead of deducting ⅓rd of it on account of self-expenditure deducted Rs. 900 only and assessed the dependency as Rs. 2,100 per month. The learned Tribunal then adopted a multiplier of 9. Undoubtedly, the learned Tribunal has adopted a multiplier of 9 after assessing the income of the deceased on very higher side. In Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. v. S. Rajapriya and Ors., II (2005) ACC 476 (SC) : 2005 (1) WLC (SC) Civil 732 : 2005 (2) T.A.C. 305 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court without taking future prospects into consideration adopted a multiplier of 12 reducing it from 16 in the case where the deceased was about 38 years of age. Viewed in that background I am of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount awarded as compensation to the claimant-appellants is just and fair and there is no need to interfere. 7. Consequently, the appeal fails which is dismissed accordingly.Appeal dismissed. *******