RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the claimant appellants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.4,90,480/- that was awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sawai Madhopur dated 8/6/2011 for the death of Sohan Lal @Sohan Kumar, who died while travelling on Tractor No.RJ.08.R.7011. Learned Tribunal has exonerated the insurance company because it held that tractor was insured with the risk covered by the driver and for agriculture purposes. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants has made twofold arguments. His first argument is that income of the deceased was Rs.4500/- per month as he was a driver and was also doing the wooden work. Tribunal erred in law in accepting the daily income of the deceased to be of Rs.81/- only. His second argument is that Tribunal erred in law in applying the multiplier of 17 as per the second schedule, whereas as per 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), it should have been 18 as per the age of the deceased that was 25 years at the relevant time. 3. Upon hearing learned counsel for the appellants and perusing the impugned award, I find that the Tribunal did not believe that the deceased would be both driver as well as carpenter. Even then, the Tribunal has accepted him to be a skilled labour and on that basis accepted his daily income to be Rs.81/- because that was the notified minimum wages at the relevant time. As far as multiplier is concerned, no doubt, it may slightly increase to 18 as per the judgment of Supreme Curt in Sarla Verma supra but considering that the insurance company has been exonerated and a total sum of Rs.4,90,480/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimants with the liability to owner of the vehicle to pay compensation, interference on that analogy is not considered appropriate. Appeal is therefore dismissed.