JUDGMENT 1. - This civil misc. appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation has been filed against the judgment and award dated 6.7.1998 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur (in short to be referred as, 'the Tribunal') in Claim Petition No.18/94 whereby the appellant has been awarded a compensation of Rs.1,79,000/-. 2. Briefly stated the facts for the disposal of the present appeal are that in a motor accident Jagannath aged about 20 years had died. The deceased Jagannath was doing the work of labour as he was engaged by Matiuddin in the employment for cutting semi-precious stones and was earning a sum of Rs.2,500/- per month. In all compensation of Rs.15,95,000/- was claimed. Before the learned tribunal, a joint written statement was filed by respondents no.1 and 2 Satbir Singh and Ramesh Chandra wherein it was stated that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver. A separate written statement was filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited wherein several objections were raised. In relation to the accident which took place on 26.12.1993, two claim petitions were filed; one in relation to death of Jagannath and the other claim petition was filed by the legal heirs of deceased Hanuman. Both the deceased were going on cycles and on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck which was being driven at a very fast speed hit the cyclists. The learned Tribunal consolidated the claim petitions and decided the same together. The tribunal framed necessary issues and recorded the evidence and after hearing the submissions of the parties awarded compensation as stated herein- above to the legal heirs of the appellant. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, this appeal has been preferred by the appellants for enhancement of compensation. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel that in the instant case the learned tribunal has committed illegality in awarding less compensation in as much as it was pleaded and orally it was proved that the deceased at the relevant time was earning Rs.2,500/- per month, therefore, the learned tribunal ought to have considered the monthly income of the deceased @ Rs.2,500/- per month. 4. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company has submitted that as per the second schedule, considering the yearly income @ Rs.15,000/- per annum and after applying the multiplier of 16 and making deduction of ⅓rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, the compensation has been awarded and there does not appear any reason to enhance the compensation. It is also contended that no reliable evidence has been produced in relation to employment. It is contended that the learned tribunal has considered the income of Rs.15,000/- per annum and decided the matter. According to the learned counsel reasonable and just compensation has been awarded. 5. I have considered the submissions made before me and perused the impugned order and the material available on record. 6. In the instant case, in the oral evidence it has been stated by AW-6 Matiuddin that the deceased was under his employment and was being paid Rs.2,500/- per month and he had worked for couple of months with him. In the cross examination, he has stated that no income tax return has been produced by him. It is stated that the firm was registered but no registration certificate has been produced. In other evidence, Shanker Lal, the father of the deceased, though stated that the deceased was earning Rs.2,500/- per month but no proof in relation to his income has been produced. In such situation, the learned tribunal has considered yearly income as per second schedule as Rs.15,000/- per annum and after making deduction ⅓rd of the above income towards personal expenses and applying the multiplier of 16 as the mother of the deceased at the relevant time was 36 years of age calculated the dependency. On other heads also compensation has been awarded. In all, a compensation of Rs.1,79,000/- has been awarded. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the income of the deceased as stated was required to be taken into consideration is not liable to be accepted. The tribunal has considered the income of the deceased in correct perspective as per second schedule. Proper deductions have been made after applying proper multiplier in the case. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 7. In the result, this misc. appeal is dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******