Bharat Bhushan, J.— We have heard Sri R.K. Chaudhry, learned standing counsel appearing for the defendant appellant. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act arises out of judgment and award dated 20.01.2012, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Vth Additional District Judge, Mirzapur in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 180 of 2010 filed by Achchay Lal Singh and Smt. Phoolmati Singh - the father and mother of the deceased Shamsher Singh, who died, while driving motor cycle on 8.7.2010 at 2.45 PM while returning to his village in front of Anshika Hospital. The claimants alleged that the accident was caused by Jeep No. UP 32 G/2181,driven by Sri Asmat Ullah Khan, who was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, and had collided with the motor cycle on the wrong side. The deceased Shamsher Singh suffered serious injuries on account which he died. In the written statement, it was submitted by the appellant as well as driver of the vehicle Sri Asmat Ullah Khan that the accident was not caused by the jeep; the motor cycle driven by the deceased was in fact collided with a vehicle (Tata Safari). The appellant relied upon the statement of driver who was examined as DW-1 and the defence taken by the driver in his report of the Superintendent of Police in which the accident was denied. The Tribunal summoned the records of criminal case, and found from the case diary that Tata Safari was not involved in the accident. The driver of the Government Jeep No. UP 32 G/2181, attached to the Executive Engineer, Ban Sagar, Nahar Nirman Khand-9, Mirzapur was responsible for the accident. The driver of the Jeep ran away from the spot, and the jeep was seized by the police. The Tribunal has recorded the findings that from the FIR, documents and the police investigation, it was clearly established that the accident was caused by the Government Jeep No. UP 32 G/2181 driven by defendant No.2, who had abandoned the jeep, and ran away from the spot. On the question of quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has relied upon judgment of the Supreme in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd [2009 (2) ACD 924], in which the Supreme Court has laid down the principle of adopting notional income, if there was no proof of income. On the question of quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has relied upon judgment of the Supreme in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd [2009 (2) ACD 924], in which the Supreme Court has laid down the principle of adopting notional income, if there was no proof of income. The Tribunal did not accept the statement of witnesses and the evidence that the deceased was engaged in the business of running a poultry farm, as there was no registration in proof of the said business. The Tribunal thereafter adopted the notional income of Rs. 3,000/- as fixed in Sarla Verma's case and allowed deduction 50 % of the notional income towards personal income of the deceased. The notional income was fixed at Rs.18,000/- per year to assess the compensation. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 11, on the age of the mother of deceased. The compensation was fixed at Rs.2,02,000/- which includes Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony. Learned standing counsel submits that the accident was caused by the driver of Tata Safari, and the appellant jeep did not collide with the motor cycle of the deceased. We have perused the judgment of the Tribunal and the evidence. We do not find any error in the findings of the Tribunal that the accident was caused by the driver of the Government Jeep. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal, on the basis of notional income relying on the judgment in Sarla Verma's case, is fair and reasonable. The First Appeal From Order has no merits and is dismissed. The amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited in the Court will be remitted by the Registry to the Tribunal within a period of one month. _____________