JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the appellant-United India Insurance Co. Ltd. against the order dated 4th July, 2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khetri, Jhunjhunu on the premise that learned Tribunal erred in law while deciding all the issues in favour of the claimants and against the appellant Insurance Company without marshalling the evidence available on record. 2. Contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is that as per record, the wife of the deceased Smt. Leelawati died before passing the final award and all the three sons of the deceased are of the age of 42, 28 and 25, respectively. Looking to their age therefore, they cannot be the dependents of the deceased. At the time of death of the deceased, only his wife Smt. Leelawati was his dependent, who died before passing the final award. Thus, there remain no dependent of the deceased at the time of passing the final award. learned Counsel for the appellant argued that apart from receiving pension, deceased was also imparting education to the students in Bharti Vidya Mandir Uchch Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Dadafatehpura, which is a private school. There, he was earning Rs. 8,370/- per month. The award of the learned Tribunal is therefore liable to be set-aside. 3. learned Counsel for intervener-respondent Nos. 2 to 4 opposed the appeal and submitted that a just and reasonable award has been passed by the learned Tribunal on cogent evidence available on record therefore, award may not be interfered with. However, he could not satisfactorily rebut the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company on the above aspect of stable income of the deceased. 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the award, I find that though it is not in dispute that deceased was a pensioner receiving Rs. 9,906/- per month as pension. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, apart from receiving pension, deceased was also imparting education to the students in Bharti Vidya Mandir Uchch Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Dadafatehpura, which is a private school. There, he was earning Rs. 8,370/- per month. learned Counsel for the appellant is justified to the extent of income of Rs. 8,370/- that was accepted as income on the premise that he was serving in a private school, cannot be taken as stable. There, he was earning Rs. 8,370/- per month. learned Counsel for the appellant is justified to the extent of income of Rs. 8,370/- that was accepted as income on the premise that he was serving in a private school, cannot be taken as stable. In that school, evidence suggests that he was working from July, 1988. This could not be like a regular income of the deceased. 5. However, considering the fact that deceased was a teacher, he would have atleast earned Rs. 3,000/- per month by tuition/coaching in a private school after he retired. His income should be therefore taken as Rs. 12,906/- per month and in round figure Rs. 13,000/-. On computation of ⅓rd towards self expenses of the deceased, thus he would be contributing to his family atleast Rs. 8,666/- per month, which if multiply by 12, it should have been to 8,666x12= Rs. 1,03,992/-. Thus, loss of dependency would be Rs. 1,03,992/- per annum. Applying multiplier of 5, amount of compensation would come to Rs. 5,19,960/- and in round figure Rs. 5,20,000/-. After deducting Rs. 50,000/- paid to the claimant towards no fault liability, total amount of compensation would come to Rs. 4,70,000/-. It is informed that Smt. Leelawati had already died after the award was passed. Amount of compensation should be distributed in equal proportion amongst the claimants. 6. Appeal is partly allowed.Appeal partly allowed *******