RAFIQ, J.—These two appeals have been filed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Tonk against the common award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk dated 5/1/2012, whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation for the injuries sustained by injured-claimant / respondent No.1 in SBCMA No.1352/12 to the tune of Rs.1,96,124/- and for the death of deceased-Indra, awarded compensation of Rs.4,70,036/- to claimant / respondents No.1 to 4 in SBCMA No.1354/12. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant-RSRTC has argued that income of the deceased could not have been accepted to Rs.3,500/- per month in absence of any definite proof of income merely on the basis of the fact that deceased was 33 years of age at the time of accident. It was argued that 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), if three passengers were riding on the motorcycle, then it should be held to be a case of contributory negligence to the extent of 25% attributable to the deceased and therefore compensation ought to have been proportionately reduced. Learned counsel argued that the injured sustained disability of 17% and on that basis learned Tribunal awarded Rs.1,21,380/- as compensation. The impugned award therefore may be modified suitably. 3. Upon hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the award, I find that the deceased was 33 years of age at the time of accident and as per the evidence adduced by the claimants, he was earning Rs.3,500/- per month. The mechanical inspection report of the vehicle proved that the bumper of the bus from the driver side was found having dent and right side indicator of the body of the bus was also found having dent. Mechanical inspection report of the motorcycle also proved damage to the motorcycle. FIR was also lodged against bus driver NAW1 driver-Ladulal and challan was filed against him for offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC and therefore the evidence adduced by NAW2 Chitar Lal that the bus was not involved in the accident was rightly not believed by the Tribunal. 4. In the facts of the case, it cannot be said to be a case for contributory negligence only because three persons were riding the motorcycle. 4. In the facts of the case, it cannot be said to be a case for contributory negligence only because three persons were riding the motorcycle. Injured, who was 30 years of age sustained 17% disability in that very accident. In those facts, Tribunal has considered to compute the compensation applying multiplier of 17 in SBCMA No.1352/12 and computed compensation of Rs.1,21,380/- in the injury case of Ratan on the basis of 17% disability. Applying multiplier of 16 in SBCMA No.1354/12 made deduction of 1/3rd in the death claim case of Gopi & Ors. on his monthly accepting income of Rs.3500/- and computed compensation of Rs.4,47,936/- and added Rs.22,100/- on various other non-pecuniary heads. 5. Quantum of compensation cannot be said to be excessive or otherwise unreasonable and therefore no interference of this court in the impugned award is made out. 6. I do not find any force in both the appeals, which are accordingly dismissed.