JUDGMENT : Jayant Patel, J. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MACP No.181/12, whereby the Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.21,07,239/- with interest at the rate of 8.5% p.a. 2. The short facts of the case appears to be that on 22.06.2010 when deceased Hareshkumar Ramjibhai Parmar was going on his motorcycle towards his residence, one tanker bearing No.GJ8W0253 dashed with the motorcycle. Resultantly, the deceased sustained serious injuries and he succumbed to the injuries. The claim petition was filed for compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. The Tribunal at the conclusion of the petition passed the above referred judgment and award. Under the circumstances, the present appeal before this Court. 3. We have heard Mr.Nanavati, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Modi, learned counsel appearing for the original claimants by caveat. 4. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the Tribunal has committed error in attributing 75% negligence for the accident to the driver of the tanker which was insured with the appellant insurance company. He submitted that the motorcyclist was on wrong side of the road and the accident is because of the same, whereas, the tanker was on the right side and therefore, there is error committed by the Tribunal. 5. We have examined the reasons recorded by the learned Tribunal. We have also considered the panchnama. The discussion of the witnesses read with the cross-examination shows that the driver of the tanker had overtaken the rickshaw and the tanker was on the other side of the road. Whereas the motorcyclist was coming from the opposite side on his right side. Further, the panchnama shows that the tanker is stopped at a distance of 50 ft. from the place of the accident. Such would shows that the tanker was being driven in excessive speed. Further, the driver of the vehicle overtaking has to be more careful in comparison to the driver of the vehicle which was being driven on the right side. Even the damage to the motorcycle is more in comparison to the tanker. Further, it cannot be forgotten that the tanker is a vehicle of big size which needs to be careful for the small sized vehicle. Even the damage to the motorcycle is more in comparison to the tanker. Further, it cannot be forgotten that the tanker is a vehicle of big size which needs to be careful for the small sized vehicle. Under these circumstances, if the Tribunal has attributed 25% negligence to the driver of the motorcycle and 75% negligence to the driver of the tanker, such could not be said to be unreasonable or perverse which may call for interference in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, the said contention is meritless. 6. The learned counsel next contended that the quantum awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. He submitted that the income has been considered based on the salary certificate, but the other relevant aspects are not considered. 7. We are not at all impressed by the submission of the learned counsel for the simple reason that the salary certificate is taken as basis for assessment of income. Further, the principles observed by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC, 121 and Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors. reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54 were taken into consideration. After considering the basic salary, ¼th amount is deducted towards personal expenses and since the deceased was aged 40 plus years, 30% prospective income is taken into consideration. Multiplier applied by the Tribunal is also as per the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court. On the aspects of compensation towards love and affection and towards loss of consortium, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.70,000/- and 50,000/- respectively. The year of accident is 2010. Hence, considering the cost structure, such amount cannot be said to be on higher side. Under these circumstances, we do not find that the Tribunal has committed error in awarding higher amount of compensation. 8. No other contention is raised. 9. In view of the above, the appeal is meritless. Hence, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.