Hon'ble SINGH, J.—Heard learned counsel for the claimant-appellants. 2. Perused the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (A.D.J. Fast Track) No.1, Bharatpur in claim case No.285/08 dated 11th May, 2010. 3. This miscellaneous appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of the amount of compensation on account of the death of Rajesh. 4. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion, while determining the compensation for loss of income, that the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was between 20-25 years. On that basis while computing the compensation, the learned Tribunal has taken multiplier of 18 as against 17 prescribed under the II Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 5. The learned Tribunal did not find favour with the evidence led by the claimants in the form of the Salary Certificate issued by the employer of deceased Rajesh, who is said to be working as a motor mechanic at a shop. The person, who issued certificate, the alleged employer did not appear in the witness-box to prove the same. There is variance between the pleadings and the proof, inasmuch as the claimants had pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.6000/- per month, whereas the certificate, which was issued was for Rs.9,600/- per month. 6. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, the learned Tribunal took the safer course of adopting the notional income of Rs.3000/- based upon the assumption that the deceased would be earning Rs.100/- per day. On the aforesaid basis, after deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses, the learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.5,01,000/- in all. 7. In the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the amount of Rs.5,01,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Rajesh to the claimants is inadequate or unjust. 8. Accordingly, I find no merit in this miscellaneous appeal. 9. The miscellaneous appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed summarily.