Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—Contention of learned counsel for appellant is that since the accident in question took place at a private premise i.e. inside the campus of Bangad Cement Factory, Beawar, it cannot be accepted that it was an accident covered under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 entitling the claimants for compensation. It was argued that there was no basis for determining the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month. Mere fact that deceased was a driver, it cannot be presumed that he would have been earning that much of amount. Learned Tribunal has erred in law in awarding compensation of Rs.7,01,000/- in favour of claimants. Age of deceased at the time of accident was 36 years. The accident took place in the year 2008 and, therefore, income should have been accepted maximum at Rs.3,000/- per month and on that basis compensation should have been computed. 2. On perusing the impugned award and considering the arguments of learned counsel for appellant, I find that learned Tribunal has determined the income of deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month on considering the fact that deceased was a driver. Normally this Court has been accepting the income at Rs.3,000/- per month during that period for unskilled labour, but it was a case where the deceased was a driver and therefore he could have been expected to have been earning Rs.4,500/- per month. Multiplier of 15 has been rightly applied considering the age of the deceased to be 36 years. The fact that accident had taken place within the premise of Bangad Cement Factory, where the deceased had gone to drive a vehicle, cannot be a reason to hold that it was not an accident within the meaning of the Act, 1988. Learned Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/5th towards self-expenses of the deceased considering the fact that he had nine dependents. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the impugned award is perfectly just and reasonable and does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The appeal is dismissed in limine.