JUDGMENT V.K. Ahuja, J. (Oral).-This is an appeal filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 12.8.2005, for enhancement of the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandi. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case which are not in dispute are that the appellant/petitioner suffered injuries in an accident which took place on 9.9.2000. The claimant was working as a conductor with the truck. He suffered multiple injuries and according to the medical opinion, there was 40% permanent disability. The income of the petitioner was assessed at Rs.2,500/- per month and the learned Tribunal considering the disability as 40%, took the income as Rs.1000/- per month and awarded a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- in favour of the appellant/claimant payable by the Insurance Company i.e. respondent No. 3. The appeal has been filed by the appellant for enhancement of the amount. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 4. The fact that the income was rightly assessed at Rs.2,500/-per month has not been disputed. The only prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the appellant was also earning income from agriculture. However, no evidence has been led to prove the income from the agriculture and, therefore, that income, if any, could not be taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal. The main ground taken by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the multiplier of 18 should have been applied and the learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 16, which calls for an interference by this Court. 5. My attention has been drawn to the latest decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., III (2009) ACC 708(SC), in which their Lordships have referred to the decision of Apex Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas, I (1994) ACC 346 (SC) and other decisions and had finally concluded in Paras 17 and 21 of the judgment that in case the age was in between 31 to 35 years, multiplier of 16 can be applied. The petitioner had claimed that his age was 31 years, though it was proved on record that his age was 33 years and accordingly multiplier of 16 can be said to be appropriate. The petitioner had claimed that his age was 31 years, though it was proved on record that his age was 33 years and accordingly multiplier of 16 can be said to be appropriate. Thus, the findings do not call for any interference. 6. In view ofthe above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.