Judgment Rajesh Tandon, J. 1. This appeal is against the Award dated 28-4-2006, passed by the Motor accident C:aims Tribunal, Nainital. 2. The claimants Smt. Vimla Devi and others preferred a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for grant of compensation for Rs. 8,50,000/- on account of the death of Bhuwan Ram in a motor vehicle accident on 22-8-2005 involving Bus No. UA-07H/5035. According to the claimants on the fateful day the deceased was going to Ranikhet by the bus in question. The bus was stopped by the driver at Ghingarikhal for payment of toll tax. The Driver of the bus left the bus and came down along with some passengers. The road was sloppy due to which bus started rolling towards reverse side and fell down in to the ditch. Sri Bhuwan Ram sustained grievous injuries in the accident and he succumbed to the injuries instantaneously. According to the claimants at the time of accident the deceased was 44 years of age. He was doing tailoring work and was earning Rs. 7,000/- per month. 3. Opposite party appellant contested the claim petition and filed written statement. The appellant denied that the accident took place due to negligence of the bus driver. It has been submitted that the compensation claimed is highly exaggerated. 4. Claimants examined P.W.1 Manoj Kumar who is the son of deceased Bhuwan Ram. Claimants also filed copy of first information report and copy of post mortem examination report of the deceased. Opposite party has examined Bus Driver D.W.1 Sri Umed Singh. 5. On the basis of the evidence led by the parties, the Claims Tribunal has held that the accident took place due to the negligence of the bus driver as he stopped the bus on sloppy road without placing stopper under the wheels and without applying hand brake. The Claims Tribunal has held the age of the deceased at the time of accident as 45 years and his monthly income as Rs. 4,500/- or Rs. 54,000/- per annum. After deducting Rs. 18000/- for own expenses of the deceased, his contribution towards the family was assessed to be Rs. 36,000/- per annum. Considering the age of the deceased a multiplier of 13 was applied and thus the total compensation was calculated as 36,000 x 13 = Rs. 4,68,000/-. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs. After deducting Rs. 18000/- for own expenses of the deceased, his contribution towards the family was assessed to be Rs. 36,000/- per annum. Considering the age of the deceased a multiplier of 13 was applied and thus the total compensation was calculated as 36,000 x 13 = Rs. 4,68,000/-. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for loss of love and affection and a sum of Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses. Thus the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,75,000/- to the claimants as compensation along with pendent elite and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 6. Sri N.S. Pundir, counsel for the appellant has urged that the amount of compensation awarded to the respondents is highly exaggerated and the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased only on the basis of conjecture and surmises and there IS no documentary evidence to prove the income of the deceased. The deceased himself jumped out of the bus at the time of accident due to which he was crushed under the bus and as such the deceased was himself responsible for the injuries sustained by him. 7. The claimants examined P.W.1 Manoj Kumar to prove the fact of accident. This witness is the son of deceased and at the time of accident he was traveling with his father by Bus No. UA-07H/5035. This witness has categorically stated that when the bus reached Toll Post at Ghingharikhal, the driver of the bus stopped the bus and came down from the bus. The bus was standing on a sloppy road. The bus started rolling towards backside and fell down into a ditch. Deceased Bhuwan Ram sustained grievous injuries in the accident and he died at the spot. P.W.1 Manoj Kumar has stated that the driver of the bus did not place stopper under the wheels of the bus as it was standing on a sloppy road. The Claims Tribunal on the basis of the evidence on record has held that the accident took place due to negligence of the bus driver. We are satisfied that the Tribunal has rightly arrived to the conclusion that the accident took place due to negligence of the driver of the bus. We, therefore, affirm the findings recorded by the Tribunal in that behalf. 8. We are satisfied that the Tribunal has rightly arrived to the conclusion that the accident took place due to negligence of the driver of the bus. We, therefore, affirm the findings recorded by the Tribunal in that behalf. 8. Now coming to the quantum of compensation, the income of the deceased has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 4,500/- per month on the statement of P.W.1 Manoj Kumar. This witness has categorically stated that his father was doing work of tailoring and was earning Rs. 7,000/- per month. Since, there was no documentary proof of income, therefore, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500/-. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the assessment of income of the deceased by the Tribunal. 9. The Claims Tribunal has held the annual income of the deceased at Rs. 54,000/- and after deducting Rs. 18,000/- for the own expenses of the deceased, if he would have been alive, the dependency of the claimants on the income of the deceased has rightly been assessed at Rs. 36,000/-. We, therefore, affirm the assessment of the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500/ - per month or Rs. 54,000/- per annum and claimants' dependency at Rs. 36,000/- per annum. 10. Considering the age of the deceased as 45 years, the multiplier of 13 is just and proper. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 36,000/- with multiplier of 13, the compensation works out to Rs. 4,68,000/-. The claims Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for love and affection and Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses, which is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case in view of the observations made by the Apex court in the case T.N. State Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. S. Rajapriya and others (2005) 6 SCC 236. In paragraph 10, the Apex Court has observed as under: "10. Much of the calculation necessarily remains in the realm of hypothesis "and in that region arithmetic is a good servant but a bad master" since there are so often many imponderables. In every case "it is the overall picture that matters", and the court must try to assess as best as it can the loss suffered." 11. The compensation of Rs. In every case "it is the overall picture that matters", and the court must try to assess as best as it can the loss suffered." 11. The compensation of Rs. 4,75,000/- when examined in the context of the above quoted dictum of the Apex Court in the case of S: Rajapriya (Supra), we are satisfied, that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 12. The interest awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the application cannot be said to be unreasonable. We quantify the amount of interest in lump sum at Rs. 25,000/-. It has been submitted that the appellant has already deposited the entire amount of award. The appellant is directed to deposit the remaining amount of interest within a month before the Claims Tribunal. 13. In view of the above, we find no merit in the appeal and the appeal is dismissed. 14. No order as to costs.