JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 27.8.2012 passed in S.B.Civil Misc.Restoration Application No.76/2012 arising out of S.B.Civil Misc.Appeal No.609/2008 rejecting the same. 3. The run up facts in brief to the institution of the present appeal are that one Ramjan Musalman, husband of the appellant no.1 and father of the appellants no.2 and 3 met an accidental death as he succumbed to the injuries sustained by him caused due to rash and negligent driving of the auto rickshaw bearing no.RJ 27 P-4324 in which he was travelling on 5.12.2005. According to the appellants-claimants, this auto rickshaw turned turtle near Roshan Nagar Mahadev Temple at 11.30 AM on the fateful day causing severe injuries to their predecessor-in-interest, who later expired. The FIR lodged in connection with the accident was registered under sections 279 and 304A IPC. In the claim petition filed before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), the appellants claimants averred that at his death, Ramjan Musalman was aged 24 years and had an income as a skilled Drum Beater and Band Player of Master Band Party of Rs. 3000/- p.m. They have further stated that the deceased in future would have formed his own Band Party and earned Rs. 8,000/- p.m. They registered a claim of Rs. 33,70,000/- under various heads. 4. Though the respondents no.1 and 2 the driver and owner of the auto rickshaw did not file any reply to the claim petition, the respondent no.3-the New India Insurance Company Limited, insurer of the auto rickshaw contested the claim on the ground inter-alia that the driver thereof at the relevant time did not have valid and effective driving license. The respondent no.4 Smt. Munni, the mother of the deceased though had filed a separate claim petition, by one consolidated award, both the petitions were disposed of together. 5. In course of the proceedings before the learned Tribunal, the appellants-claimants examined three witnesses including one Gulam Nabi, who had issued a Certificate (Ex.20) to the effect that at the relevant time, the deceased was a Drum Player with the Master Band Party and had an income of Rs. 3000/- p.m. That along therewith he used to receive rewards also ranging from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 1500/-, was stated by this witness. 6. 3000/- p.m. That along therewith he used to receive rewards also ranging from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 1500/-, was stated by this witness. 6. The learned Tribunal, on a consideration of the rival pleadings and the evidence on record, held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the auto rickshaw and also returned a finding that the insurer was liable to bear the compensation to be awarded. The age of the deceased was accepted to be between 20 to 25. Vis-a-vis his income, the learned Tribunal, on an evaluation of the evidence on record, fixed it at Rs. 2100/- p.m. In arriving at this conclusion, the learned Tribunal noticed the inconsistency in the averments made in the application in this regard. Qua the testimony of Gulab Nabi, it was recorded that the appellants-claimants in their application had stated that the proprietor of the Master Band Party was one Bulbul Bhai whereas he claimed himself to be the proprietor and testified to have issued the Certificate Ex.20 in that capacity. The learned Tribunal also on a scrutiny of other evidence on record held the view that there was no acceptable proof that at the time of his death, deceased had an income of Rs. 3000/- p.m. In that view of the matter, deducting an amount of Rs. 700/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the learned Tribunal by applying the multiplier of 17, considering his age at the time of his death, computed the amount of compensation payable to be Rs. 2,85,600/-. In addition, the learned Tribunal awarded amount of Rs. 22,000/- towards loss of estate & consortium, funeral expenses etc. and thereby, in all quantified the amount of compensation to be Rs. 3,07,600/-. Further directions after adjustment of the amount of Rs. 50,000/- paid against no fault liability for the apportionment of the rest i.e. Rs. 2,57,600/- were also issued. 7. Being aggrieved, the appellants-claimants preferred S.B.Civil Misc.Appeal No.609/2008 which was dismissed for non-compliance of peremptory order dated 19.4.2012 requiring them to take necessary steps as mentioned therein for issuance of notice. The application for recall of this order was registered as S.B.Civil Misc. Restoration Application No.76/2012. By the judgment and order impugned in the instant appeal, the learned Single Judge has held that neither any case has been made out for recalling the order dated 19.4.2012 nor the appeal did bear any merit. The application for recall of this order was registered as S.B.Civil Misc. Restoration Application No.76/2012. By the judgment and order impugned in the instant appeal, the learned Single Judge has held that neither any case has been made out for recalling the order dated 19.4.2012 nor the appeal did bear any merit. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants-claimants have preferred this appeal. 8. Mr. R.S. Mankad has emphatically argued that as the learned Tribunal was apparently in error in rejecting the Certificate Ex.20 and in computing the amount of compensation by accepting without any basis Rs. 2100/- to be monthly income of the deceased, the impugned award is liable to be interfered with and enhanced amount of compensation ought to be granted in the interest of justice. 9. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the pleaded facts, the documents and the evidence on record, we are not in a position to persuade ourselves to conclude that the learned Tribunal had erred either in law or on facts in not acting upon the Certificate Ex.20 and or otherwise accepting the appellants-claimants assertion that the deceased at the time of his death had a monthly income of Rs. 3000/-. The analysis made by the learned Tribunal of the evidence on record in this regard, in our comprehension, is not faulty or erroneous. The learned Single Judge affirmed the conclusion of the learned Tribunal in this regard on an adequate appraisal of the materials on record. There is apparent variation between pleadings and proof vis-a-vis the proprietorship of the Master Band Party having a bearing on the Certificate Ex.20. The other evidence with regard to the income as well does not render the findings recorded by the earlier forums absurd or implausible. In this view of the matter, in the present appeal, we see no cogent and convincing reason to over-turn the concurrent findings of the learned Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge.The appeal lacks in merit and is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******