Judgment Hon'ble RATHORE, J.—The National Insurance Co. Ltd., (Non-claimant) has preferred this misc. appeal challenging the award passed by Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No. 7 Jaipur City, Jaipur in Claim Petition No. 361/2004 (2051/2002) by which the learned Judge has awarded compensation of Rs.13,56,500/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum. 2. The present appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company on the ground that the compensation awarded by the learned Court below is excessive and same cannot be said to be just and reasonable as per provisions of Section 168 of M.V. Act. 3. It is also contended that as per salary certificate (Exhibit-13) issued by Principal of 'Rajkiya Ucch Madhyamik Vidhyalaya, Pawta, Jaipur, the deceased Praveen Bhargava was employed as Laboratory Assistant and drawing salary of Rs.9,076/- per month, from which a sum of Rs.1,160/- was deducted towards G.P.F., Rs.400/- towards State Insurance and Rs.60/- towards R.P.M.F. etc. Thus, the deceased used to draw a net salary of Rs.7,916/- at the time of his death. Further, at the time of accident as per injury report (Exhibit-9) the deceased was 42 years old. 4. Learned Tribunal has also erred while enhancing the monthly alary from Rs.9,076/- to Rs.13,500/- keeping in regard the future prospects. Learned Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd there from towards deceased's self-expense in order to arrive at a monthly loss of dependency of Rs.9,000/- to the claimants. The annual loss of dependency, thus, came to Rs.1,08,000/-. Learned Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 12 and assessed total loss of dependency of Rs.12,96,000/-. Learned Tribunal awarded total compensation to the tune of Rs.13,56,500/-. 5. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon careful perusal of judgment passed by the Tribunal, the Tribunal after considering each and every aspect has rightly awarded compensation considering the age, income and future prospects and awarded a sum of Rs.13,56,000/-. The judgment passed by the learned Tribunal requires no interference by this Court. 6. In the result, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the misc. appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. 7. The interim order granted by this Court on 18th August, 2004 stands vacated. The stay application also stands rejected.