BHAGWATI, J.—Challenge in this appeal is the judgment and award dated 24th January, 2007, whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bharatpur, decreed an amount of Rs. 3,10,000/- in favour of the claimants-appellants and against the respondents. 2. Adumbrated in brief, the facts of the case are that on 16th May, 2006, at about 4:00 pm, when the deceased Surendra alighted from Bus at the place Uncha Nagla to drink water, one truck bearing Registration No. RJ-05-1R-5495, driven by its driver rashly and negligently suddenly emerged at a high speed and hit Surendra, who succumbed to injuries on 20th May, 2006, during medical treatment. It is stated that the deceased Surendra was 22 years of age at the time of his death and earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned award. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants focused his arguments only on the question of income of the deceased and canvassed that the deceased was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month, whereas, the Tribunal considered only Rs. 2,400/- to be the income of the deceased for the purpose of reckoning the amount of compensation. Learned counsel cited one case of State of Haryana & Anr. vs. Jasbir Kaur & Ors. reported in 2003(3) TAC 569 (S.C.), wherein the Apex Court considered/fixed the income of the agriculturist to be Rs. 3,000/- per month. The deceased was also an agriculturist and the Tribunal ought to have considered income minimum to be Rs. 3,000/-, but the Tribunal arbitrarily considered only Rs. 2,400/- to be the income, hence, having considered Rs. 3,000/- to be the monthly income of the deceased, the amount of compensation should be enhanced and amount be modified. 5. E converso, the learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company defended the impugned award and stated the same to be just and proper and contended that it did not warrant any intervention. 6. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the impugned award and the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellants, it is revealed that in the case of State of Haryana (supra) the deceased was agriculturist. He did not place any material before the Tribunal to prove his income. Otherwise too, there was not even any material adduced to show type of the land which deceased possessed. He did not place any material before the Tribunal to prove his income. Otherwise too, there was not even any material adduced to show type of the land which deceased possessed. The claimants indicated Rs. 4,500/- to be the income of the deceased. The Apex Court in this regard categorically observed that no reason had been indicated to arrive at this figure. In order to reckon the “just compensation”, the income cannot be estimated without any material to justify the estimation. 7. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is revealed that the claimants did not produce any material so as to prove Rs. 5,000/- to be the income of the deceased. In the absence of any proof of income, the Tribunal is found to have rightly considered the minimum wages of the skilled labour prevailing at the relevant point of time and thus, found to have rightly computed the loss of dependency. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellants does not render any assistance to the claimants and the same is of no avail. The impugned award, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is found to be just and proper and suffers from no infirmity. I do not find any ground to interfere with the same and thus, the appeal being devoid of any substance deserves to be dismissed. 8. For the reasons stated above, the appeal fails and the same being bereft of any merit stands dismissed.