Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been preferred by non-claimant-appellant Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Limited being aggrieved by award dated 04.07.2011 of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (Special Court – Communal Riots), in MAC Case No.91/2011 (505/2010). 2. Contention of learned counsel for appellant is that the amount that has been awarded to the claimant is excessive considering the fact that there was no proof of his income and that even he was working only as a labourer. Learned counsel argued that the notional income at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month, should have been accepted and since the injured claimant was aged 50 years, learned Tribunal ought to have applied multiplier of 11 and it has erred in law in applying the multiplier of 13. Learned counsel has argued that injury was sustained by the claimant while riding the bus and, therefore, he should be careful enough and that even if the bus was started by the driver after his wife boarded the bus, it could at the maximum be held to be a case of contributory negligence. 3. On hearing learned counsel for the appelalnt and perusing the material on record, I find that the evidnece in the present case is suggestive of the fact that he was an unskilled labouer. Apart from claimant himself, AW-2 Sohanlal, the owner of M/s. Bhatlia Trading Company, Udaipurwati Road, Chirana, has appeared as a witness and stated taht his firm engaged the claimant for doing the work of stone carving at the relevant time, for which he was being paid Rs.300/- per day. Pay certificate Exhibit-112 has also been placed on record. Learned Tribunal, on that evidence, has recorded a finding that the injured has to be considered as a skilled labourer and not unskilled. In this case, notional income at the rate of Rs.3000/- as suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, could not be taken. Even then, the learned Tribunal, to be on safer side, has reduced the income by just half and did not completely accept the evidence of AW-2 Sohanlal and also of claimant himself. This is because if Rs.300/- was accepted as daily wages of the injured, the monthly income would have come to Rs.9000/-, whereas learned Tribunal has determined it only at Rs.4500/- per month. This is because if Rs.300/- was accepted as daily wages of the injured, the monthly income would have come to Rs.9000/-, whereas learned Tribunal has determined it only at Rs.4500/- per month. At the age of 50, learned Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 13 relying on the judgment in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another – (2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC), and even second schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provides applicability of multiplier 13 for the persons whose age ranges between 46 and 50. The claimant was rendered to suffer permanent disability to the extent of 45%, and compensation of Rs.3,15,900/- on that count cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable. The compensation on other non-pecuniary heads is also justified. It cannot also be said to be a case of contributory negligence because if the claimant's wife boarded the bus, the driver ought to have started the bus only after ensuring that both of them climbed the bus and not in the midst. 4. I do not find any merit in this appeal and same is accordingly dismissed.