Anil Kumar Sharma, J.;— We have heard Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, counsel for the appellant, Sri Archit Mehrotra, appearing for claimant-respondents no. 1 and 2, as also perused the impugned award and papers filed along with memo of appeal. It appears that on 09.08.2011 deceased Prabhat Jha son of respondents no. 1 and 2 was going on cycle to Kavinagar Industrial Area and when he reached near Bhatta no. 5 on Ghaziabad-Meerut road at about 6.30 A.M. driver of U.P. Roadways Bus No. U.P.-15 AT-1121 driving the vehicle rashly and negligently knocked him down. The deceased Prabhat Jha died on the spot. The claimants being parents of deceased filed claim petition alleging that the aforesaid facts regarding manner of accident and further stating that the deceased was working in Kohinoor Footwear Pvt. Ltd. E-181, Industrial Area, Kavinagar Ghaziabad on monthly pay of Rs.5,000/- and the claimants were dependent on his income. It was further stated that father of the deceased is disabled person as he had sustained injuries in both legs in another accident. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised two contentions before us; firstly that the offending bus was under control of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation at the time of accident, the appellant has not insured their interest and as such they are liable to indemnify the award. We find that this controversy has been resolved by the Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Kulsum and others (2011) 8 SCC 142 , and the learned Tribunal has rightly directed the appellant to indemnify the award. Assailing the award, last contention of counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has illegally placed reliance on the evidence of claimants adduced by them to prove the income of the deceased. Oppugnating the above arguments, counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2 has submitted that the claimants have filed salary certificate of the deceased which had been proved by Gopal Krishna-P.W. 3, Production Manager of M/S Kohinoor Foodwear Pvt. Ltd. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised hypothetical arguments assailing the testimony of P.W. 3 on the ground that he has not brought his identity card. On perusal of testimony of Gopal Krishna-P.W. 3, we find that he appeared before the Tribunal after getting the summons. On perusal of testimony of Gopal Krishna-P.W. 3, we find that he appeared before the Tribunal after getting the summons. He has proved the signatures of the Director of his company on the salary certificate of the deceased dated 30.6.2011. He has brought the attendance register of his company to prove the employment of the deceased. No contra evidence was led by the appellant to disprove the alleged income of the deceased. On perusal of cross-examination of Kiran Devi-P.W. 2 (mother of the deceased), we find that she has also testified about monthly pay of the deceased. No suggestion had been given to this witness by counsel for the appellant before the Tribunal that the deceased was not employed in Kohinoor Footwear Pvt. Ltd, aforesaid. Thus, we find that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased and carving out dependency of claims by deducting 50% from annual income of the deceased has applied multiplier on the age of parents of the deceased and has thereby awarded just and reasonable compensation to the claimant-respondents no. 1 and 2 who have lost their young son in the motor accident. In view of the above reasons, we find that the appeal lacks merit which is accordingly dismissed. The statutory amount of money deposited by the appellant to this Court be remitted to the concerned Tribunal within three weeks for adjustment. _____________