JUDGMENT Aravind Kumar, J.—Though this matter is listed for admission, by consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal and since the matter is of the year 2007. 2. The insurer-United India Insurance Company Limited is in appeal challenging the judgment and award passed in MVC No. 189(sic)/2000 dated 1.9.2005 by MACT. Bangalore, whereunder the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,67,068/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till payment to the legal heirs of the deceased Sri. Prathaparam Koil, who is said to have expired on account of injuries sustained in a road traffic accident on 15.03,2000. 3. The facts in nut-shell are as follows: One Sri. Prathaparam Koil was getting down from a bus while returning home from his factory on 15.3.2000 at about 7.15 p.m. near Koodlu gate Junction at Hosur Road, Bangalore. At that time, said bus bearing registration No. KA-01-3400 all of a sudden moved even before he could alight, on account of which, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries and was admitted to St. John's Hospital and later on succumbed to injuries. On account of his death, the legal heirs, namely, wife, sons, mother and father of the deceased filed a claim petiton in MVC No. 1892/2000 under Section 166 of the Indian Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/ from the respondents. On service of notice, 1st respondent-insurer appeared and filed statement of objections denying the petition averments. Respondents-2 and 3 were placed exparte. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed following issues for its consideration: 1. Whether the petitioners prove that deceased Prathaparam Koli, was succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident on 15.3.2000 at about 7.15 p.m. near Hosur Road, Kudlu gate junction, due to the actionable negligence driving of the driver of bus bearing No. KA-01-3400? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what amount and from whom? 3. What order or award? 5. The claimants in support of their claim got examined the lst claimant i.e., the wife of deceased as P.W.I and got marked 13 documents viz., Exs. P. 1 to P. 13. The respondents did not lead any oral evidence, but got marked the policy of the offending vehicle as Ex. R. 1. 3. What order or award? 5. The claimants in support of their claim got examined the lst claimant i.e., the wife of deceased as P.W.I and got marked 13 documents viz., Exs. P. 1 to P. 13. The respondents did not lead any oral evidence, but got marked the policy of the offending vehicle as Ex. R. 1. On considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the tribunal allowed the claim petition in part and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 5,44,068/- towards loss of income to the dependents, Rs. 10,000/- towards lose of expectancy, Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st claimant for loss of consortium and Rs. 3,000/- towards funeral expenses and obsequies. Thus, in all, a total compensation of Rs. 5,67,068/- was awarded with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till payment. It is this judgment and award, which is now assailed in the present appeal by the insurer contending that the compensation awarded by tribunal, requires to be reduced. 6. I have heard Sri. A.M. Venkatesh, learned counselappearing for the appellant-Insurance Company and Sri. K.P. Pradhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. K.T, Gurudev Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for respondents-1 to 5. 7. Sri. A.M. Venkatesh, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that Tribunal committed a grave error in taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,000/- p.m. on the basis of Ex.P. 13 when the author of Ex.P. 13 has not been examined. Accordingly, he seeks for reduction in the compensation awarded to the legal heirs of the deceased under the heading loss of income to the dependants. He would contend that income of the deceased ought to have taken at Rs. 3,000/- p.m. in the absence of examining the author of Ex.P.13 by the claimants. No other grounds have been urged in the appeal. 8. Per contra, Sri. Pradhan, learned Counsel for the respondents supported the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and submits that deceased was working as a security guard and had been posted at SKF Bearing India Limited by his employer namely, Central Investigation and Security Services Limited on the date of accident and to evidence the fact that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs. 4,000/- p.m., a certificate issued by the employer had been produced before the Tribunal which came to be marked as Ex.P. 13 and mere non-examination of the author would not disprove the fact of the deceased was not working as a security guard and drawing salary of Rs. 4,000/ p.m. particularly when the wife of the deceased herself has stated before the Tribunal as to the nature of the avocation of the deceased and his income. Accordingly, he seeks dismissal of the appeal. 9. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, the following points would arise for my consideration: 1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVC No. 1892/2000 is just and reasonable or it requires to be modified/reduced and if so, to what extent? 2. What order? 10. Re. Point No. 1: 11. Since the accident in question and the issuance of the policy to the offending vehicle is not being in dispute, same is not being analyzed in this appeal. The only issue according to the learned Counsel for the appellant that would arise for consideration would be with regard to the income of the deceased. The 1st claimant, namely the wife of the deceased who has got herself examined as P.W 1 has stated in her evidence that deceased was the sole earning member of the family. It is stated not only in the evidence but also in the claim petition that they were all the residents of Uttaranchal State and in search of employment, they had come to Bangalore two years prior to the date of accident. It is stated in the claim petition by the LRs of the deceased that deceased was working as a security guard at SKF Bearing India Limited. A perusal of Ex.P. 13 issued by the Central Investigation and Security Services Limited which had been engaged in the services of providing the security services and other services to its clients reveals that the deceased was working as a security guard at the time under them and deceased had been posted at SKF Bearing India Limited at the time of accident. His pay and allowances all inclusive was Rs. 4,000/- p.m. as per Ex.P. 13. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant, the author of Ex. P. 13 has not been examined. His pay and allowances all inclusive was Rs. 4,000/- p.m. as per Ex.P. 13. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant, the author of Ex. P. 13 has not been examined. The fact that the claimant was working as a security guard cannot be disputed and is also not in dispute. The wife of the deceased has entered witness box and stated that deceased was working as a security guard in the above Company and the certificate issued by the employer which is at Ex.P.13 has been produced. The deceased was the resident of Bangalore city living with his wife, two children, father and mother who were depending on him. Thus, a person who was residing in Bangalore and earning a sum of Rs. 4,000/- p.m. cannot be held that it would not be commensurate with the employment with which he was engaged. Hence, the contention of Sri. A.M. Venkatesh that income of the deceased ought to have been taken at Rs. 3,000/- p.m. does not appeal to the Court. Accordingly, it is not accepted. Yet another fact which requires to be noticed is that in respect of a labourer, cooile or mazon. Their income is considered at Rs. 100/- or 150/- per day depending upon the date of accident. In the instant case, the accident has occurred on 15.3.2000 and the income considered by the Tribunal at Rs. 4,000/- p.m. cannot be held to be either exorbitant or not in consonance with the avocation of the deceased. Accordingly, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, point No. 1 formulated herein above is held in the negative and answered against the appellant. 12. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that judgment and award passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity either in law or on facts and requires to be confirmed. 13. Re. Point No. 2: 14. In view of the above discussion the following order is passed: ORDER a) The appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits. b) The judgment and award passed by the VII Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore in MVC No. 1892/2000 dated 1.9.2005 is hereby confirmed. c) The amount in deposit if any before this Court is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith, No order as to costs.