Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been filed by the claimants-appellant dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation that was awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur vide dated 25/5/2010 to the tune of Rs.1,55,000/- in an injury case. 2. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Tribunal erred in law while awarding compensation of Rs.1,55,000/-, which is towards the lower side looking to 25.2% permanent disability opined by the medical board of the SMS Hospital, Jaipur and fracture of leg sustained by the appellant. Appellant's monthly income was Rs.5,000/- but the learned Tribunal erred in law while accepting income of the appellant to be Rs.3,000/-. At the time of accident, age of the appellant was 50 years and multiplier of 13 should have been adopted but the learned Tribunal erred in law while accepting age of the appellant between 50-55 years adopted the multiplier of 11. Learned Tribunal further erred in law while granting lump sum amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- for 'pain & suffering', 'permanent disability' and 'difficulty in performing daily routine work', which is a quite unjustified amount of compensation. Rs.6,000/- awarded for 'medial expenditure', 'nutritious diet' and 'transportation charges' is also towards the lower side. 3. Upon hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the award, I find that so far as not accepting the age of the appellant to be 50 years and on that basis not adopting the multiplier of 13 is concerned, there were contradictions regarding the age of the appellant to be 50 years mentioned in the claim petition as well as x-ray report and in the statements of the witnesses depicting age of the appellant to be 55 years and therefore the learned Tribunal rightly so looking to these contradictions, accepted the age of the appellant between 50-55 years and thus rightly applied the multiplier of 11 in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another : (2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC). 4. 4. So far as not accepting the income of the appellant to be Rs.5,000/- from 'sarki' & 'muj' work, what was claimed by the appellant in her claim petition is concerned, that income could not be proved by the appellant herself before the Tribunal therefore rightly so, learned Tribunal in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court in Lata Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar : (2001) 8 SCC 197 , wherein Supreme Court accepted income of Rs.3,000/- for those persons between the age group of 34-59 years, whose income could not be proved, accepted income of the appellant to be Rs.3,000/- per month, which cannot be held unjustified in any manner whatsoever. 5. Argument of the learned counsel that award of compensation looking to the permanent disability of 25.2% is towards the lower side, cannot be acceptable because the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.750/- per month & Rs.9,000/- yearly assessing 25% permanent disability relying on the permanent disability certificate dated 11/11/2009 issued by the medical board of the SMS Hospital, Jaipur however, it was submitted with enormous delay of twelve years from the date of alleged incident i.e. 9/10/1998. Learned Tribunal has also awarded justified amount of compensation on all other non-pecuniary heads. 6. I do not find any good ground for interference with the award impugned in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.