Hon'ble CHAUDHARI, J.—This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the award dated 20th September 2000 passed by the Judge, MACT, Jaipur District, Jaipur, in Claim No.308/97 (Gopal Lal Sharma & ors vs. Kailash Chand & ors)by which tribunal awarded claim of Rs.2,34,000/-. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 16.6.97 deceased Kana Ram was going on Bicycle. Respondent No.1 who is owner and driver of Jeep No.RJ-14-1C-6735 while driving Jeep rashly and negligently hit Bicycle of deceased Kana Ram which resulted in death of Kana Ram. The jeep has been insured by respondent No.2. Appellants who are parents, wife and daughters of the deceased, claimed compensation. 3. Respondents filed separate reply and pleaded that there was no negligence on the part of the respondent and also raised many objections and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. After recording evidence, learned Tribunal awarded Rs.2,34,000/-against which this appeal has been filed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and respondents and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that learned Tribunal has committed error in assessing only Rs.1,500/- per month income of the deceased whereas income of Rs.3,000/- per month has been proved, hence, appeal may be accepted and awarded amount may be enhanced whereas learned counsel for respondent submitted that already excessive amount has been awarded by the learned Tribunal so appeal may be dismissed. 6. As far income of the deceased Kana Ram is concerned, A.W. 1 Jamoti has stated in her statement that her husband Kana Ram deceased was 25 years old at the time of accident and he used to earn Rs.3000/- by Tea stall. In cross examination, she has stated that she does not have any books of accounts. She never went to shop of the deceased. She also stated that deceased used to earn Rs.15/- Rs20/- per day but later on stated deceased used to earn Rs.100/- Rs.150/- per day. A.W. 2 Gopal Lal who is father of deceased stated in examination-in-chief that deceased used to earn Rs.125-Rs.150/- per day. In cross examination, he stated that deceased used to earn Rs.100- Rs.150/- per day as per version of deceased son. He has also admitted that he did not use to go to Tea stall of deceased. 7. A.W.1 Jamoti and A.W.2 Gopal Lal did not use to go to the Tea stall of deceased. In cross examination, he stated that deceased used to earn Rs.100- Rs.150/- per day as per version of deceased son. He has also admitted that he did not use to go to Tea stall of deceased. 7. A.W.1 Jamoti and A.W.2 Gopal Lal did not use to go to the Tea stall of deceased. No other witness has been examined by the appellants to prove that deceased had very good sale. Appellants have not produced any document pertaining to Tea stall. In such circumstances, learned Tribunal has not committed any error in assessing income of the deceased to the tune of Rs.1,500/- per month. 8. After deducting 1/3rd in consideration of the expenses which the victim would incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive, learned Tribunal has rightly assessed dependency @ Rs.1000/- per month of the appellants. Age of the deceased was near about 25 years and as per II- Schedule multiplier of 17 should have been applied whereas learned Tribunal applied multiplier of 18. As per II- Schedule in the head of General Damages Rs.9500/- should have been awarded whereas learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.18,000/-. Thus it becomes clear that Tribunal has awarded excessive amount, hence, no question for enhancement of awarded compensation. Consequently, appeal of the appellants is dismissed.