GUPTA, J.—This misc. appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 3.5.2000 passed by learned MACT, Ajmer in MAC No. 1265/99 (42/91) for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal as alleged in the claim petition are that the claimant-appellant has filed a claim petition for the death of his father Babulal and grandfather Nasir alleging therein that on 1.11.1990 at about 5.00-5.15 PM his father and grandfather were going in a Trolla No. RSZ 6321. When they reached near Kishanpura, the Trolla driver driving the Trolla in rash and negligent manner, overturned it and father and grandfather of the appellant died. After considering the facts and circumstances, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of the claimant/ appellant. Hence, this misc. appeal. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record especially the impugned judgment and award. 4. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that at the time of death, Babulal father of the appellant was aged 36 years and minimum wages at the relevant time have not been considered by the Tribunal and future prospects and other factors have also not been considered. It has been submitted that if any income has not been proved by the claimant then on notional income, compensation should have been calculated and the present appellant is the only legal heir of both the deceased. 5. The claimant has stated before the Tribunal that his father was earning Rs. 35/- per day and grandfather was earning Rs. 20-25 per day. It was also stated that his father was doing business of horses but, no evidence has been produced in this regard. Hence, it is not a case where the deceased were not working. They were working and their income was very meager. Looking to the said facts, the learned Tribunal has concluded that there is no dependency of the present appellant on the deceased. Hence, Rs. 50,000/- which has been awarded by the Tribunal for interim maintenance is more than sufficient. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on 2001 ACJ 1735, Lata Wadhwa & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. Hence, Rs. 50,000/- which has been awarded by the Tribunal for interim maintenance is more than sufficient. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on 2001 ACJ 1735, Lata Wadhwa & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. which is the case of housewives and while assessing value of their domestic services and looking to the age of children of deceased, damages have been awarded. The facts are quite different in the present case. Counsel for the appellant has further relied on the decision in 2006 ACJ 992 = RLW 2005(3) Raj. 1654, Kamlesh & Ors. vs. RSRTC & Ors. where the deceased was a non-earning member but, here the deceased, as considered by the Tribunal, was earning member and dependency on the deceased was calculated rightly by the Tribunal. The award which has been passed in favour of the appellant is proper and just and need not to be interfere with. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.