JUDGMENT 1. 1. This Misc. appeal has been filed by the appellants against the award dated 14.12.2001 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kotputli District Jaipur (for short the learned Tribunal ) in claim case No. 280/1998 by which a sum of Rs. 1,06,000/- has been awarded to claimants appellants. 2. Brief facts as narrated in the claim petition are that on 24.4.1998 Mr. Peetambar was going by truck No. RJ-02-G-1053 from Saroond towards Tapukda. At about 5.00 AM when the truck reached near Milk Dairy, another truck No. HR-29-GA-0480 being driven rashly, negligently and with excessive speed by its driver respondent No. 1, came from Behrod side and by violating the traffic rules and by coming on the wrong side, hit the truck No. RJ-02-G-1053. Because of the collision of both the trucks Mr. Peetambar sustained serious injuries. He was taken to hospital where he died during the course of treatment. 3. The respondent No. 1 the driver, respondent No. 2 owner of the truck No. HR-29-GA-0480 did not appear before the learned Tribunal, hence ex-parte proceedings were initiated against them. Respondent No. 3 the Insurance Company of this truck contested the claim petition and filed its reply. 4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. On the basis of the pleadings of parties, the learned Tribunal framed the issues. 5. The learned Tribunal after considering the evidence produced by the parties, passed the impugned award. Hence, this Misc. appeal before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants claimants submits that the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned award has not considered the statements of the witnesses. The learned Tribunal has manifestly erred in considering the monthly income of the deceased only as Rs. 2400/- i.e. Rs. 28,800/- p.a. The deceased by profession was a driver and his monthly income was about Rs. 3,000/- besides allowances. He used to contribute a large part of his income towards the family members i.e. the claimants appellants. The learned Tribunal has further erred in applying very low multiplier of 5 years only in this case. He has pointed out that according to the age of the deceased and keeping in view that the second schedule given in the Motor Vehicles Act, a much higher multiplier ought to have been applied in this case. Hence, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal be enhanced. 7. On the other hand Mr. He has pointed out that according to the age of the deceased and keeping in view that the second schedule given in the Motor Vehicles Act, a much higher multiplier ought to have been applied in this case. Hence, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal be enhanced. 7. On the other hand Mr. Virendra Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Insurance Company submits that at the time of the accident the deceased was unmarried and he was 30 years of age. No certificate has been produced by the claimants appellants regarding his income. The claimant appellant Nos. 1 and 2 Gyarsi Lal and Smt. Shanti Devi are 70 and 72 years of age. The alleged incident has taken place near about 13 years ago. He further submits that the Advocate appearing for the claimants appellants is not sure whether claimants appellants are alive or not. Lastly, he submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal need no interference of this Court. 8. From a bare perusal of the facts of the case and the material made available to me as also going through the record of the case, in my considered view, the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned award has considered each and every aspect of the matter. 9. In the result, this Misc. appeal is devoid of merits and stands dismissed and the award dated 14.12.2001 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kotputli District Jaipur in claim case No. 280/1998 is hereby confirmed.Appeal dismissed. *******