RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been preferred dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation in the sum of Rs.2,26,800/- that has been awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur vide award dated 15.2.2011. 2. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that income of the appellant should have been accepted as Rs.7,000/- per month. Appellant filed income-tax returns and salary certificate therefore the Tribunal was not justified in not accepting the monthly income of the appellant as Rs.7,000/-. Multiplier of 18 should have been applied because age of the appellant at the relevant time was 26 years. Therefore, the learned Tribunal erred in law in applying multiplier of 17. This could make enormous difference in the amount of compensation. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award, I find that salary certificate was of a private firm and the income tax returns Exh.35 and Exh.36 were also for the earlier years. According to the salary certificate Exh.37, appellant was receiving Rs.278/- per annum and monthly income according to which comes to Rs.6300/- and at the relevant time, the appellant was 25 years of age as mentioned in the FIR therefore the learned Tribunal did not commit any error in accepting the age of the appellant as 25 years and applying multiplier of 17. 4. I do not find any error in the impugned award, which does not call for any interference by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.