Judgment : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The only grievance raised by the appellant is that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. No other point is argued and therefore, the controversy to be decided in this case is within the narrow compass. 2. It is not disputed that Sukhvandir Singh was working as driver on Truck No.CG-04 ZC-5065 belonging to original respondent No.1. While driving the said truck, the truck struck against a pole on 27.11.2002 on National Highway No.6 in Raipur District (M.P.) as a result of which Sukhvandir Singh died. The said truck was insured with present appellant (original respondent No.2). 3. The Tribunal held that claimants were entitled to compensation of Rs.2,65,500/-together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization from appellant and respondent No. 2 jointly and severally. 4. Learned counsel for appellant insurer extraneously argued that the Tribunal presumed the monthly income of deceased Sukhvinder Singh at Rs.2000/- per month even though the claimant failed to produce on record the salary certificate from the employer of deceased. He contends that the bare version of claimant about the monthly salary of deceased should not have been believed at all by the Tribunal in absence of any documentary proof. Learned counsel for appellant has placed reliance on Reshma Kumari and Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan and Anr., decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4646 of 2009 to urge that the multiplier given in the second schedule can only be used as a guide and neither the Tribunals nor the Courts would use it as the ready reckoner. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 supported the impugned judgment. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has pressed into service the judgment of the Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. arising out of SLP (C) No.8648 of 2007. 6. I have perused the impugned judgment and award. The fact that deceased Sukhvinder Singh was working as driver on a truck is not disputed by appellant-insurer. The certificate of salary showing monthly income of deceased at Rs.3000/-per month was not proved but document was listed at exhibit 4. However, looking to the occupation of the deceased as truck driver his monthly salary presumed at Rs.2000/- per month in the year 2002, in my opinion, is not erroneously inferred by the Tribunal. The certificate of salary showing monthly income of deceased at Rs.3000/-per month was not proved but document was listed at exhibit 4. However, looking to the occupation of the deceased as truck driver his monthly salary presumed at Rs.2000/- per month in the year 2002, in my opinion, is not erroneously inferred by the Tribunal. In ReshmaKumari’s case (supra) the Apex Court has held that the second schedule under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act can be used as a guide. In SarlaVerma’s case (supra) the Apex Court has held that the income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependant family, constitutes the multiplicand. It has been further held that having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has to be appropriately identified by this Court. The multiplier should be appropriately chosen guided by the said table with reference to the age of the deceased as also age of the dependant claimant. 7. The Tribunal has computed the compensation in the following matters: i) Damages for loss of dependency a) Monthly income of the deceased. Rs. 2000/- x12 b) Annual Income of the deceased. Rs. 24,000/- 1/3rd deductions towards c) the personal expenses of Rs. 8,000/- the deceased. d) Multiplier of 16 applicable. Rs. 16,000/- x16 Damages for loss of dependency Rs. 2,56,000/- Damages for loss of ii) contribution to the estate. Rs. 2,500/- Damages for expenses iii) Rs. 2,000/ incurred on funeral. Total Damages Rs. 2,60,500/- 8. In my opinion, the computation of compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper in the facts and circumstances. No interference is called for in the impugned judgment and award and consequently, appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. In the result, present appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.