JUDGMENT 1. - The Insurance Company is aggrieved by the award dated 10.12.2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs. 10,65,000/- to the claimant-respondents along with an interest of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 16.12.2009 around 10.00 PM, Sanjay Kumar (the deceased for short) was riding his motorcycle. When he reached near Petrol Pump No.9, Police Station Alwar Gate, Ajmer, his motorcycle was hit by a car coming from the opposite side, bearing registration No.RJ01-CB-2101, being driven rashly and negligently. Consequently, he sustained grievous injuries; subsequently, he died. Since the claimant-respondents lost their husband, father, son and brother, they filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. In order to prove their case, the claimant-respondents examined a single witness, namely, Shanu, wife of the deceased - the respondent No.1, and submitted certain documents. On the other hand the Insurance Company neither examined any witness, nor submitted any document. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal has granted a compensation as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal. 3. Mr. Virendra Agrawal, the learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/-, although there was no evidence to prove this fact. Secondly, that instead of deducting one-third of the income, as the amount the deceased would have spent upon himself, the learned Tribunal has deducted one-fifth of the amount while assessing the dependency. Hence, the compensation awarded is excessive. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Anil Yadav, the learned counsel for the claimant-respondents, has contended that the claimant-respondents had pleaded that Sanjay Kumar was earning Rs. 10,000/- from his business of press, dry cleaning and rafoo. In order to establish this fact, the claimants had submitted the rent receipts as well as receipts of the premium paid by Sanjay Kumar for the insurance policies. According to these receipts, Sanjay Kumar was paying Rs. 42,000/- as premium to the insurance companies. Thus, the learned Tribunal was certainly justified in assessing his income as Rs. 6,000/- per month. In order to establish this fact, the claimants had submitted the rent receipts as well as receipts of the premium paid by Sanjay Kumar for the insurance policies. According to these receipts, Sanjay Kumar was paying Rs. 42,000/- as premium to the insurance companies. Thus, the learned Tribunal was certainly justified in assessing his income as Rs. 6,000/- per month. Moreover, the learned Tribunal has relied upon the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 DNJ 684 , in order to deduct one-fifth of his income as the amount that the deceases would have spent upon himself. Hence, the learned counsel has supported the impugned award. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award. 6. A bare perusal of the impugned award clearly reveals that the claimant-respondents had submitted receipts of the premium paid by Sanjay Kumar to the insurance companies. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was certainly justified in concluding that at least he had been paying Rs. 42,000/- per year as premium to the insurance companies. The learned Tribunal has also noticed the fact that he was maintaining a motorcycle, and that he was running a business of dry cleaning. Looking at all these circumstances, the learned Tribunal was certainly justified in assessing his income as Rs. 6,000/-, and not as Rs. 10,000/-, as claimed by the claimant-respondents. 7. In the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly stated that in case there are large number of family members who are dependent on the deceased, then one-fifth should be taken as the amount that the deceased would have spent upon himself. Therefore, the deduction made by the learned Tribunal cannot be faulted.For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present appeal. It is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******