Judgment Vinod K.Sharma, J. 1. This application under section 5 of the Limitation Act has been moved for condoning the delay of 31 days in filing the appeal. In view of the averments made in the application, civil misc. is allowed and the delay of 31 days in filing the appeal is condoned. FAO No. 2700 of 2010 This appeal by the owner of the offending vehicle, is directed against the award dated 18.11.2009 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (for short the Tribunal). 2. Two claim petitions were consolidated as they arose out of the same accident. 3. Pleaded case of the claimants was, that on 5.10.2007 at about 12.30 PM, Ramwati claimant/respondent, along with her husband Dharampal, was coming on Scooty bearing registration No. HR-30-B-5176, from village Fatehpur to village Uncha Gaon, Ballabgarh. She was pillion rider, which was being driven by her husband Dharampal. Scooty was on the left side of the road at a very slow and moderate speed. When they reached near Yadav Farm between village Deegh and Sunper, the offending bus No. HR-38-F-7786, driven by respondent No. 7, rashly and negligently, came from front side and hit the scooty, as a result of which both the occupants fell on the road. While claimant fell on one side, her husband on the other side as they were directly hit by the bus. Both of them suffered injuries, and were taken to Government Hospital, Ballabgarh, while Dharampal died on his way to hospital. The claimant Ramwati was admitted in Central Hospital, Faridabad for treatment. 4. FIR No. 193 dated 5.10.2007 under sections 279, 338 and 304-A IPC was registered at Police Station Sadar Ballabgarh, against respondent No. 1. 5. Respondent No. 1 contested the claim petition by raising number of preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability, locus standi and cause of action. Claim petition was said to have been filed to harass the appellant. 6. On merit, all the allegations in the claim petition were denied. It was even denied that any accident had occurred.. 7. Above said stand taken by respondent No. 1, was also taken by other respondents. However, it was admitted that vehicle in question was not insured with any insurance company. 8. On the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed the following issues :- 1. Whether deceased Sh. It was even denied that any accident had occurred.. 7. Above said stand taken by respondent No. 1, was also taken by other respondents. However, it was admitted that vehicle in question was not insured with any insurance company. 8. On the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed the following issues :- 1. Whether deceased Sh. Dharampal son of Shri Ram Saroop had died on account of motor vehicular accident caused by respondent No. 1 by his rash and negligent driving while driving Bus No. HR-38-F-7786 ?OPP 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim as claimed in the claim petition ? OPP 3. Whether the petitioners have got no locus standi to file the present petition ? OPR 4. Whether no cause of action has arisen to the petitioners to file the present petition ? OPR 5. Relief. 9. To prove the case, the claimants examined Jai Kishan ASI as PW 1, who proved FIR Ex.Pl, Kulwant son of Dharampal as PW 2, who produced the copy of driving licence mark A and Registration certificate of offending vehicle. Post mortem report of deceased was also proved. Claimant Ramwati appeared as PW 3, Shiv Charan son of Dharampal appeared as PW 4, whereas doctors were produced to prove the injuries suffered by the claimant/respondent, in the accident. 10. However, the respondents, led no evidence in support of the stand taken. 11. In view of the evidence led which went unrebutted, learned Tribunal recorded a finding that accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, in which deceased Dharampal died. Claimants were held entitled to the compensation, as it was proved that Dharampal was aged 60 years, and was running a shop, where he was earning Rs. 6000/- (Rupees six thousand only) per month. She had also claimed that she was helping her husband, but she was unable to run the shop now due to disability. She proved the expenses incurred on her treatment by producing medical bills but she did not lead any evidence in proof of permanent disability. 12. Compensation on account of death of Dharampal, was claimed by pleading that deceased was also dealing with ice and was earning Rs. 8000/- (Rupees eight thousand only) per month. She proved the expenses incurred on her treatment by producing medical bills but she did not lead any evidence in proof of permanent disability. 12. Compensation on account of death of Dharampal, was claimed by pleading that deceased was also dealing with ice and was earning Rs. 8000/- (Rupees eight thousand only) per month. But the learned Tribunal held that except oral evidence there was no proof of income and therefore, taking in view the fact that deceased was an able bodied person, his income was taken as Rs. 3500/- (Rupees three thousand and five only) per month i.e. the wages of unskilled labourer. Other claimants were not found to be the dependent on the deceased, claimant Ramwati was only taken to be dependent. 13. After deducting l/3rd towards the personal expenses, the dependency was assessed at Rs. 2800/- (Rupees two thousand and eight hundred only) per month, and keeping in view the age multiplier of 9 was applied. Thus, compensation of Rs. 2,67,000/- (Rupees two lacs sixty seven thousand only) i.e. Rs. 2,53,000/- (Rupees two lacs fifty three thousand only) for loss of dependency, Rs. 5000/- ((Rupees five thousand only) on account of funeral charges. Transportation expenses, Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) for loss of estate and Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) for loss of consortium, was awarded. 14. Interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum was also award. 15. Mr. R.M. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, challenged the award on the ground that the compensation awarded was based on no evidence. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, was that the deceased was 60 years of age and therefore, it could not be said that he was earning any amount. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the learned Tribunal committed an error in granting a sum of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards funeral charges, Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards transportation charges another Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) for loss of estate and consortium. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant also challenged grant of interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. 17. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. Appellant had chosen not to lead any evidence in support of the stand taken. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant also challenged grant of interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. 17. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. Appellant had chosen not to lead any evidence in support of the stand taken. Compensation awarded by treating the income of the deceased to be Rs. 3500/- (Rupees three thousand and five hundred only), can not be said to be excessive, nor application of multiplier can be said to be bad in law. Interest granted is also nominal i.e. 6 per cent per annum, whereas relief granted on account of funeral expenses, transportation charges and loss of consortium also cannot be said to be arbitrary or not warranted on the facts and circumstances of the case, which may call for interference by this court in appeal. 18. No merit. 19. Dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed