JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 28.2.2007 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (First), Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 520/2005 whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,71,000/- to the appellants on account of death of Shri Vijay Soni (husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellants No. 2 and 3) in the accident occurred on 3.8.2005 at Jodhpur-Beawar Road. The appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the compensation while claiming that the Tribunal has not awarded just compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 3.8.2005, the deceased Vijay Soni was going on a motor-cycle towards Beawar from Bar, then suddenly a car No. RJ 19 2 C 0551 thrashed his motor cycle and on account of that, the deceased suffered serious injuries and after providing first- aid at Nimaj hospital, he was brought to MDM Hospital, Jodhpur where he died on 5.8.2005 at 2:00 AM on account of injuries received in the accident. 3. A claim petition was filed by the claimants while alleging that the accident, in which Shri Vijay Soni died, took place on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 Sobhag Singh, the driver of the car. 4. A claim for Rs. 71,08,000/- was filed. The claim was contested by the respondents, however, the learned trial court after hearing learned counsel for the parties decided the issues No. 1 and 3 in favour of the appellant-claimants and has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,71,000/- as compensation under the different heads to the appellants No. 1 to 3. 5. Learned counsel for appellants has urged that the learned Tribunal has grossly erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,000/- per month only whereas the evidence to this nature, proving his income as Rs. 10,000/-, was produced on behalf of the claimants before the Tribunal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the learned Tribunal has also not applied the correct multiplier and committed an error by not awarding any compensation towards the expenses borne by the appellants in the treatment of the deceased, who remained admitted in the hospital for about 32 hours. 7. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the learned Tribunal has also not applied the correct multiplier and committed an error by not awarding any compensation towards the expenses borne by the appellants in the treatment of the deceased, who remained admitted in the hospital for about 32 hours. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has also urged that the learned Tribunal has awarded a very meagre amount under the head 'loss of consortium' and has awarded insufficient amount under the head 'funeral expenses'. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the award passed by the learned Tribunal and has argued that the claimants have failed to place any material on record to prove that the income of the deceased was Rs. 10,000/- per month at the time of his death and in the absence of any such proof of income, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,000/- per month. 9. Learned counsel for respondents have also argued that the age of the deceased was 25 years on the date of his death and, therefore, correct multiplier of 17 was applied by the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel for respondents has also argued that the Tribunal has awarded just compensation under the other heads and the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal is not liable to be interfered with. 10. This Court has considered the submissions made on behalf of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 11. From the record, it is clear that no definite proof regarding income of the deceased was produced on behalf of the claimants. Two certificates (Exhibits 20 and 21) issued by Devendra (AW 2) and Lalit Kumar Soni (AW 4) were produced and they appeared as witnesses too, however, both the said witnesses have failed to produce the balance sheet or income tax returns of their firms to certify that they were paying the wages to the deceased as certified in the certificates (Exhibit 20 and Exhibit 21). In view of above discussion, this Court does not find any infirmity in the findings of learned Tribunal in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,000/- per month. 12. In the post mortem report, the age of deceased is mentioned as 25 years. In view of above discussion, this Court does not find any infirmity in the findings of learned Tribunal in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,000/- per month. 12. In the post mortem report, the age of deceased is mentioned as 25 years. The appellants had not produced any evidence to prove the age of deceased otherwise, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly applied the correct multiplier as per the Schedule-II of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1989. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads is also just and cannot be said to be inappropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case. 13. In view of above observations, this Court does not find any merit in this appeal. Hence, the appeal is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******