Hon'ble SINGH, J.—This miscellaneous appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred by the appellants-RSRTC being aggrieved by the award dated 31st May, 2010 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track) Laxmangarh in Motor Accident Claim Case No.72/2010. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants-RSRTC has submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in accepting the income of the deceased as Rs.3000/- per month when there was no proof to that effect and in adopting the multiplier of 15 on the basis of the age of the parents of the deceased. 3. So far as the aforesaid submission is concerned, 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) has held that it would be safe to accept the income of unskilled labourer also as Rs.100/- per day and on that basis an annual income of Rs.36000/-. 4. Since the learned Tribunal adopted a similar approach while deciding the claim and taken the notional income as Rs.3000/- per month and has deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses and has calculated the annual income as Rs.24,000/- and adopted the multiplier of 15, no exception can be taken to the aforesaid method adopted by the learned Tribunal. 5. So far as the adoption of the multiplier of 15 is concerned, the parents were found to be aged 40-42 years. 6. In that view of the matter as per provision of the II Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and taking into consideration the age of the parent which is less the multiplier prescribed for the age group of 40-45 can safely be adopted. Since the multiplier of 15 has been prescribed for the aforesaid age group under the Schedule, I find no infirmity in the award passed by the learned Tribunal. 7. The miscellaneous appeal is accordingly dismissed summarily.