Rakesh Tiwari, J.— We have heard Sri Anshu Chaudhary, counsel for the appellants, and perused the record as also papers filed along with memo of appeal. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 18.3.2005 passed by M.A.C.T./Special Judge (Dacoity Effected Area), Etah in M.A.C.P. No. 416 of 2001, partly allowing the claim of the appellants. The order is assailed on the ground that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of tractor driver which is evident from naksha nazri as well as statements of witnesses; that the deceased was not negligent in any manner; that the court below has not calculated amount of compensation in accordance with the provisions laid down in schedule-II of Motor Vehicles Act; that the Tribunal has awarded meagre amount of compensation, and has illegally applied the multiplier by considering age of the complainant-appellants, who are his parents. The order is also assailed on the ground that the Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/3rd of the notional income to be incurred by the deceased in maintaining himself. It is lastly argued that the deceased was a good student and he would have got good job, but his future prospects have not been considered which has resulted in award of less compensation. Brief facts culled out from the record are that a claim petition under section 160 of Motor Vehicles Act, was filed in respect of the aforesaid accident which occurred on 26.6.2001 at about 9.30 A.M. on Tundala- Etah road near bridge on Sirsa river with tractor no. U.P. 81H/0505. The offending vehicle i.e. tractor, aforesaid, was being driven in rash and negligent manner when the accident took place with motorcycle no. U.P.80M/2517 of Saurabh (since deceased). The motorcycle was being driven by one Ramesh Chandra son of Sonpal. Ramesh Chandra and Saurabh both died on the way to hospital at Firozabad road. The tractor driver ran away from the spot leaving behind the tractor-trolley. The report of accident was lodged by Rabhuvir Singh son of Sonpal on 26.6.2001 at about 3.45 P.M. in police chaoki-Nagla Beech, P.S.-Narkhi. The age of the deceased at the time of accident was said to be 18 years. The claim petition was contested by Rishi Pal Singh, owner of the tractor as well as by National Insurance Company Ltd. with whom it was insured. The age of the deceased at the time of accident was said to be 18 years. The claim petition was contested by Rishi Pal Singh, owner of the tractor as well as by National Insurance Company Ltd. with whom it was insured. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed following issues: @ Hindi @ The Tribunal while deciding issue no. 1, held that due to rash and negligent driving of tractor driver, the accident in question had occurred in which Saurabh died due to injuries sustained by him. The Tribunal decided issue no. 2 holding that the tractor was insured for the period 5.7.2000 to 4.7.2001, as such its insurance was valid on the date of accident and its' driver also was possessing valid and effective licence. The Tribunal deciding issue nos. 3 and 4 further held that the deceased was only Intermediate pass and was going to Agra to take admission in B. Com. in the University. The Court disbelieved the contention of the claimants that he would have become a chartered accountant and had a bright career. In fact the Court noted that no evidence whatsoever was led by the claimants about his future prospects. The deceased may or may not have become a chartered accountant and the claim about good future prospects thus is based on surmises and conjectures. The Tribunal also held that in column no. 6 of the plaint, the claimants have themselves shown the income of the appellants as nil applying multiplier of 10' on the age of the parents taking his notional income to be Rs.15,000/- per month and considering that he would have spent 1/3rd part on himself, computed a sum of Rs.1,02,000/- including Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses etc. along with 6% simple annual interest to be paid equally to the appellants to which claimants were entitled. Thus, the Tribunal has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case. After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants, and perusal of record, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal has calculated the compensation correctly on the age of parents by using multiplier of 10' on the notional income of the deceased as he was not employed which is also evident from the claim petition of the appellants. There is no illegality in the award impugned which is well considered. There is no illegality in the award impugned which is well considered. For all the reasons stated above, the appeal is accordingly, dismissed. _____________