JUDGMENT 1. - Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation under the award dated 10th July, 2001 rendered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, the Appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the quantum of compensation. 2. In this case, Smt. Lada the wife of the claimant-Omprakash, was going by a Tractor No. HYT-1348 on 28th August, 1997 for doing the work as a labourer to Vaishali Nagar, Khatipura, Jaipur, the driver of the Tractor drove it rashly and negligently, as a result of which Smt. Lada fell from the Tractor and came under its wheel, resulting into her death on the spot. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 4. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the impugned award, it is noticed that the deceased Smt. Lada was only 20 years old at the time of death. Her husband Omprakash was also 23 years of age at that time. She was issue-less, having no son and no daughter. Thus, she left no dependency behind and the claimant-husband Omprakash who was only 23 years of age cannot be said to have been dependent on her. Even if we admit the argument of the learned Counsel for the Appellant and take into consideration minimum wages prevalent at the relevant point of time and after applying the multiplier as proposed in the IInd Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act and compute the amount of compensation, there being no dependency, the amount shall turn out to much less than what the award of Rs. l,50,000/-has been passed by the learned Tribunal. The minimum wages noticed by the State of Rajasthan prior to 30th April, 1998 was only 32 rupees for unskilled laour. If we take the minimum wages to be the income of the deceased, it comes to Rs. 960/-per month. After applying the multiplier of 17 as proposed in the IInd Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, the amount of compensation can be computed thus: 960 x 12 x 17 = 1,96,040/-5. Since the dependency is almost zero and the husband cannot be said to have been dependent on his wife, hence it cannot be said that the Appellant is entitled to claim the full amount. Since the dependency is almost zero and the husband cannot be said to have been dependent on his wife, hence it cannot be said that the Appellant is entitled to claim the full amount. However, the amount of compensation under the award cannot be reduced as no appeal has been filed by the non-claimants in this regard. Thus, in my view, the learned Tribunal has awarded the lump sum amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation to the claimant, which seems to be perfectly just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. The impugned judgment is well merited and to my view too, the same warrants no interference.6. For these reasons, the appeal being bereft of merits stands dismissed.7. There shall be no order as to costs.Appeal Dismissed. *******