RAFIQ, J.—Delay is condoned. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.10,35,000/- that was awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur vide award dated 21/3/2009. 3. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that Tribunal has erred in law in not considering the whole of the income tax returns Exb.19. There was no reason for the Tribunal not to believe the income of Rs.24,000/- p.a., which deceased-Pawan Kumar Chandel used to receive from other sources and accepted only income of Rs.90,000/- by way of salary. Learned counsel argued that the income tax returns of the year preceding of the death of the deceased of the assessment year 2005-06 if believed by the Tribunal, it could not have been for one part, which could not be disbelieved for other part. Entire income tax returns should have been considered for computing loss of income. Learned counsel argued that widow of the deceased would in no way claim other source of income of her husband and therefore she could not be deprived from the benefits flowing therefrom. Once the income tax department has accepted the other source of income, Tribunal has erred in law in not accepting that. Learned counsel argued that the compensation deserve to be suitably enhanced by accepting monthly income of Rs.1,20,000/- or atleast Rs.1,40,000/- as accepted by the income tax department and compensation ought to be computed on that basis. 4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the appellants and perusing the impugned award, I find that the Tribunal has on Issue No.4 made a detailed discussion and rendered reasons as to why it has not accepted the income of Rs.24,000/- p.a. from other source. Tribunal has stated that it is not proved as to from what source such income was received by the deceased. Whether, he was also doing part time job or had income from other sources, is not explained nor the same has been proved by the claimant or even from the statement of the widow. Tribunal has stated that it is not proved as to from what source such income was received by the deceased. Whether, he was also doing part time job or had income from other sources, is not explained nor the same has been proved by the claimant or even from the statement of the widow. Tribunal was justified in doing so because it was required to see whether such an income, which was claimed by the claimants from other sources in the assessment year 2005-06 was regular income or it was received by him every year or of preceding years or it was a monthly income or agricultural income or income from shares debentures etc. This was necessary to determine whether income was a regular income or that the income would cease after his death or would otherwise continue to be received by the widow after his death. 5. In those facts, Tribunal cannot be said to have erred in not accepting the income from other source as regular source for the purpose of accepting loss of dependency. Even otherwise, Tribunal has adopted multiplier of 17, which according to 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), should have been 16 for the age group of persons between 31-35 years as deceased Pawan Singh Chandel was 31-32 years. Therefore, the adopted multiplier of 17 is liable to be reduced to 16. Therefore, even if what is contended by the appellants is otherwise accepted, income of one additional year i.e. Rs.90,000/- as it is being accepted by the Tribunal. In my view therefore, there is no infirmity in the award so as to call for any interference by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.