Judgment 1. Appellant Shamima Khatoon and others being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 23.2.2000 passed by Shri Devendra Kumar Lal, 2nd Addl. District Judge-cum-Motor Vehicles Accident Claim Tribunal, Nawadah, and award signed on 26.4.2000 in Claim Case No. 25 of 1998/20/1999, (Shamima Khatoon & Others vs. Anjani Kumar Singh & Others) have preferred this Misc. Appeal for setting aside the same and enhancement of quantum of the award. 2. Heard learned counsel of both the sides. 3. The learned Tribunal had decided the claim application filed by the aforesaid appellants in respect of death of Md. Nooruddin of village Sheikhpura, P.S. Narhat, District-Nawadah, who was husband of Appellant No. 1 aged about 40 years and by profession driver of Trekker No. BR-27-3786. He died on 10.12.1997 at about 10 A.M. due to collision with a Maruti Nandan Bus bearing registration No. BR-2A-7305 which was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver of the Bus and it dashed the trekker near the Irrigation Office, Nawadah which was coming from Hasua. 4. The trekker driver died in the aforesaid accident. As per contention, he was paid Rs. 3,000/- (Three thousand) per month by way of salary and Rs. 50/- (Fifty) per day as his meal charge. A Claim Petition was filed for compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees two lacs fifty thousand only). 5. Learned counsel for the Oriental Insurance Company, the insurer of the Bus bearing Registration No. BR-2A-7305 appeared and contested the matter. 6. Here, the only question to be decided is regarding the quantum of the compensation. 7. It has been submitted that monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 3,000/- (Three thousand) per month and Rs. 50/- (Fifty) per day by way of meal allowance. In the year 1997, the deceased used to ply the trekker in between Gaya and Nawadah. 8. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Tribunal has grossly reduced the income of the deceased and as such has awarded lesser amount of compensation. 9. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the entire aspect of the merit of the claim petition in context with the age of the deceased and applied multiplier system of 15. 10. The learned Tribunal has held that there is no document to support the salary of the deceased. 9. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the entire aspect of the merit of the claim petition in context with the age of the deceased and applied multiplier system of 15. 10. The learned Tribunal has held that there is no document to support the salary of the deceased. Neither, any paper has been filed nor any competent person has been examined to support his claim 11. The income of Rs. 54,000/- (Fifty four thousand) per annum at that time would also come within the purview of an assessee of income tax. So, the learned Tribunal has rightly held that the income of the deceased should be Rs. 2,000/- (Two thousand) per month. It rightly came to the conclusion that Rs. 2,40,000/- (Two lacs forty thousand) is to-be paid to the claimant besides Rs. 2,000/- (two thousand) i.e. Rs. 2,42,000/- (Two lacs forty two thousand only). 12. To me, it appears that anticipating such income, the claim of the claimants-appellants for Rs. 2,50,000/- (Two lacs fifty thousand) was initially filed. 13. Considering all the facts and circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. So, no interference is required with the impugned order. 14. In the facts and circumstances, this appeal stands dismissed.