JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 21.6.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chittorgarh ('the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal for death of one Jagdish Chandra has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.23,05,008/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing application i.e. 20.3.2001. 2. The application was filed by the claimants inter alia with the averments that Jagdish Chandra along with his brother-in-law Mangilal was riding on motor-cycle No.RJ-06-8M-4298 from Mevda to Aakola when at about 8:00 p.m. the offending truck No.HR-46-C-0637, which was driven rashly and negligently by Ved Prakash came from the wrong side of the road and collided with the motor-cycle, resulted in grievous injuries to both Jagdish Chandra and Mangilal, to which Jagdish Chandra succumbed. It was claimed that the deceased was working as Constable with BSF and was aged about 30 years and based on the said submissions compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,03,94,000/- was claimed. 3. The application was opposed by the non-claimants. The insurance company filed its reply and claimed violation of policy conditions by the owner of the truck for lack of valid driving licence and permit. Further the quantum of compensation sought was also disputed. 4. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant-insurance company did not lead any evidence in support of its plea regarding violation of policy conditions and the fact that licence as well as permit were available on record, nagated the plea. While determining the amount of compensation, the Tribunal based on the salary certificate (Ex.-13) issued by the Commandant BSF came to the conclusion that the salary of the deceased was Rs. 12,046/- at the time of his death, deducted ¼th towards his personal expenses and applying multiplier of 16 looking to his age arrived at the compensation of Rs.15,06,672/- and after providing for 50% towards future prospects i.e. Rs.7,53,336/-; Rs.10,000/- each to the claimants towards loss of consortium and love & affection; Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses awarded a sum of Rs.23,05,008/-. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal committed error in awarding excessive compensation to the claimants. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal committed error in awarding excessive compensation to the claimants. It was submitted that the income certificate was not proved and that the Tribunal did not deduct amount towards income-tax, the retiral benefits to the claimants also were required to be deducted and therefore, the award amount deserves to be interfered with. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-caveator supported the award impugned. 7. It was submitted that it is not in dispute that the income certificate has been issued by the Commandant BSF and that the deceased was constable with BSF and therefore, the certificate as issued did not require any further proof and therefore, the compensation having been awarded in consonance with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 the same does not call for any interference. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the award passed by the Tribunal. 9. The Tribunal after considering the evidence available on record, determined the age, income, deduction, multiplier and future prospects. The determination is in consonance with law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and the same does not call for any interference. 10. So far as the non-deduction of income-tax is concerned, the Tribunal while determining the said aspect noticed that the income of the deceased was below the taxable limit and there was no deduction indicated in the salary certificate and based on that, it did not deduct any income-tax, the said determination of the Tribunal is perfectly justified and does not call for any interference. 11. So far as the validity of the salary certificate (Ex.-13) is concerned, the said certificate having been issued by the Commandant BSF and the fact of deceased serving with BSF being not in dispute, the submissions made in this regard are rejected. So far as the argument about the Tribunal having not taken into consideration the retiral benefits, which are given to the family of the deceased, is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar and Ors. So far as the argument about the Tribunal having not taken into consideration the retiral benefits, which are given to the family of the deceased, is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar and Ors. v. Kishore Dan and Ors., 2013 ACJ 1441 has laid down that the benefits made available to the family of the deceased employee cannot be taken into consideration while calculating the amount of compensation. 12. In view thereof, the said submissions also has no substance. 13. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the appeal, the same is, therefore, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.