Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellants dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation that was awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jaipur, City Jaipur dated 29/7/2011, whereby a sum of Rs.6,20,000/- has been awarded as compensation. 2. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the compensation awarded is towards the lower side keeping in view the fact that : (i) lower rate of interest has been awarded on the awarded amount, (ii) learned Tribunal erred in law while not granting any compensation for future prospects and has incorrectly assessed the monthly income of the deceased towards the lower side i.e. Rs.4030/-, whereas deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- from the cultivation work and from the job of truck-driver. Consequently, his contribution to the family would have been higher than Rs.3224/- as has been assessed by the Tribunal and (iii) learned Tribunal has also wrongly adopted the multiplier of 15 at the age of 43 years. The appeal therefore be allowed and the compensation be suitably enhanced. 3. Upon hearing learned counsel for the appellants and perused the award, I find that though the claimants claimed the income of the deceased to be Rs.10,000/- however, AW4 Vinod Prasad Sharma employer of the truck, on whose truck, the deceased was a driver, proved income of the deceased to be Rs.6,000/- only but that without any corroborating any documentary evidence in support of this income. Claimants also could not prove from the document Exh.13 i.e. the Khasra Girdawari that deceased was earning any income from the agriculture work. Hence, in the absence of proved income and as per the judgment of Supreme Court rendered in Sarla Verma & Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another : (2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC), learned Tribunal rightly assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.4030/- @Rs.155/- per day minimum wages for the skilled labour as per the revised rate of the minimum wages in 2011 deducting 1/5th towards the self expenses of the deceased amounting to Rs.806/- and thus assessing net monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.3224/- in view of the judgment of Sarla Verma supra as dependents in the present case are seven. 4. 4. So far as applying the multiplier of 15 is concerned, there was no proof regarding age of the deceased to be 43 years as claimed therefore the age of the deceased was accepted between 40-45 years and accordingly, the multiplier of 15 was yet. However, as per the judgment of Sarla Verma supra, for the persons between the age group of 41-45 years, the multiplier of 14 has been provided yet, the Tribunal liberally adopted the multiplier of 14. 5. So far as non-consideration of compensation for 'future prospects' is concerned, since the deceased was an agriculturalist and not a government servant hence, as per the judgment of Sarla Verma supra, learned Tribunal rightly in the light thereof, did not award any compensation for future prospects. 6. In my considered view, learned Tribunal awarded a just compensation to the claimant-appellants considering all factors in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma supra. 7. There is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.