ORDER 1. Challenging the validity and legality of the award dated 5.2.2013 passed by VII MACT, Gwalior in Claim Case No.90 of 2012, the appellants/claimants have filed this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. By the impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.8,16,495/- with interest to the claimants for the death of one Devendra Singh Kaurav about 33 years of age who died in vehicle accident on 19.3.2012. According to appellants, the compensation awarded is on lower side and hence, needs to be enhanced and hence, challenging the quantum of award passed by the Tribunal, the appellants have filed this appeal. So the question that arises for consideration is whether any case for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on facts / evidence adduced is made out and if so to what extent ? 2. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail, such as how the accident occurred, who was negligent in driving the offending vehicle, who is liable for paying compensation etc. It is for the reason that firstly all these findings are recorded in favour of claimants by the Tribunal. Secondly, none of these findings though recorded in claimants’ favour are under challenge at the instance of any of the respondents such as owner/driver or insurance company either by way of cross appeal or cross objection. In this view of the matter, there is no justification to burden the judgment by detailing facts on all these issues. 3. As observed supra, it is a death case. On 5.2.2013 the deceased Devendra Singh Kaurav, aged 33 years, met with a accident and died while he was going to Umri in connection with some Government work on his Motorcycle, which was dashed by a Tavera bearing No.MP07-BA-2195. The legal heirs of the deceased filed the claim petition for seeking compensation for their husband, father and son's death. The case was contested by the respondent insurance company. Parties adduced evidence. The Claims Tribunal after assessing income of deceased Rs.53433/- per annum and applying the multiplier of 15 and holding that he was spending 1/4th on himself as personal expenses by impugned award partly allowed the claim petition filed by claimants and as stated supra, awarded a sum of Rs.8,16,495/- , the breakup of which is as follows :- Rs.8,01,495/- Towards loss of dependency. Rs. Rs. 15,000/- Towards loss of estate and consortium. 4. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the record. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that deceased was employed in the Government service as Panchayat Secretary in spite of this fact, his future prospect has not been considered by the learned claims Tribunal in assessing the compensation whereas, 30% of the income ought to have been assessed for the same. 6. On perusal of the award, it becomes clear that the said contention has been considered in paras 27 to 31 and it has been held by learned Tribunal that the deceased was contingent employee owing to which, as per judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi State Road Transport Corporation reported as (2009) 6 SCC 1298 future prospect of the income of the deceased cannot be considered. The findings of learned claims Tribunal appear to be justified as the witness Pratap Singh Kushwah (PW3) has stated in para 6 that Panchayat Secretary is given an honorarium and not a fix salary and due to that, no deduction is made from his salary. The witness has further admitted that the said post is temporary. In para 7 of his statement, the witness has deposed that the Panchayat Secretary is paid only for the days, he works. In view of the facts, it is concluded that the deceased was contingent paid temporary employee. Consequently, the future prospect for enhancement of his income cannot be considered. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the multiplier of 17 ought to have been applied in this case, whereas, the learned Claims Tribunal has committed error in applying the multiplier of 15. In this regard, learned Tribunal has given the finding in para 32 of the impugned award. The age of the deceased has been determined to be between 36 to 40 years. Considering the said age, the multiplier applied by learned Claims Tribunal appears to be appropriate. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellants have not produced any document showing the age of the deceased whereas, he was admittedly employed in the department of panchayat by which, it indicates that the appellants have suppressed the actual age of the deceased and they have not come before the Court with clean hands. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellants have not produced any document showing the age of the deceased whereas, he was admittedly employed in the department of panchayat by which, it indicates that the appellants have suppressed the actual age of the deceased and they have not come before the Court with clean hands. Otherwise, there was no reason for them to have produced age certificate of the deceased. Consequently, they are not entitled to get any relief as sought in this appeal and hence, It is concluded that the findings given by learned Claims Tribunal are justified. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the income of the deceased was assessed as Rs.5937/- per month whereas, income of the deceased from tution itself was Rs.6000/- per month which was not considered. In this regard, learned Claims Tribunal considering the evidence in paras 26 to 30 has arrived at the conclusion that the income from the tution of the deceased has not been found proven. The said findings appear to be convincing as the deceased was Government servant and without seeking permission from the department, no government servant can employ himself in any other profession. The story put forth by the appellants regarding income of deceased from tution is found to be totally baseless. 9. Considering the facts mentioned above and for the foregoing reasons, learned Claims Tribunal has not committed error in assessing the income of the deceased. The amount awarded by learned Claims Tribunal is justified and does not deserve to be interfered with by this Court. 10. Hence, it is concluded that no reason has been found to interfere in the impugned award and therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant/insurance company being merit less is hereby dismissed. 11. No order as to the costs.