Hon'ble SINGH, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants has challenged the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kekri (Ajmer) dated 16th June, 2009 in Claim Case No.139/2008 on the ground that the quantum awarded is inadequate. 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the claimant-appellants is that the learned Tribunal has erred in computing the income of the deceased as annual Rs.36,000/- on the basis of the notional income and not taking the actual income into account for which the evidence was produced. 4. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and gone through the findings on Issue No.2 given by the learned Tribunal. 5. In the instant case, there is a sole statement of the claimant, who is the widow of the deceased, that the deceased was having license to drive a heavy transport vehicle and that his monthly income was Rs.7000-8000. 6. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the above, the learned Tribunal has erred in taking the income as Rs.3000/- per month as the notional income. 7. So far as the income of the deceased from the driving of the truck is concerned, admitted position is that neither the owner of the truck on which the deceased was employed nor any person from his side i.e. the Munim or any such person, who could depose with regard to what salary was being paid to the deceased as has been produced from the side of the claimant to support the statement of the widow. 8. In that view of the matter, in the facts and circumstances, no exception can be taken to the computation of income made by the learned Tribunal, which is in-consonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Devi and Others vs. Mohammad Tabbar and Another, reported in 2008 A.C.J. 1488 = 2008(4) RLW 3370 (SC). 9. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, looking to the aforesaid approach of the learned Tribunal it cannot be said that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is inadequate or calls for any interference. 10. The miscellaneous appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed summarily.