RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been filed by the appellants dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer vide award dated 5/5/2006 to the tune of Rs.6,94,936/- in favour of the claimant-appellants. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the Tribunal erred in law while not granting compensation under the head of future prospect, whereas income tax returns for the year 1993 to 1998 were on record. Deduction of 1/4th ought to have been made because at the relevant time, number of dependents were four. According to the age of the deceased between 30-35 years, multiplier of 17 should have been adopted, whereas in the instant case, multiplier of 16 has been adopted. 3. Upon hearing learned counsel for the appellants and perusing the award, I find that the Tribunal on the basis of the income tax returns of the deceased found monthly income of Rs.5,000/- and on the basis of dependency, deducted 1/3rd. It is true that at the time of filing claim petition, number of dependents were four but subsequently, one of the claimants died and thus remained only three claimants i.e. mother, wife and daughter. The brother of the deceased has been substituted as legal heir but he cannot be taken as dependent of the deceased or otherwise, he was not entitled to receive any amount of compensation. The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence has determined the age of the deceased to be 32 years therefore deduction of 1/3rd towards the own expenses of the deceased would be justifiable. So far as submission of future prospects is concerned, this factor considers in the case of a government servant, who has stable income while the deceased was not a government servant having no stable income. 4. I do not find any infirmity in the award so as to make interference by this court therewith. 5. The appeal is therefore dismissed.