JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Limbadi (hereinafter referred to as "the learned tribunal") in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 382 of 1999 dated 23/9/2008, by which the learned tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 6,60,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till realisation towards compensation for the death of deceased Shamjibhai, original opponent No. 3 - insurer - New India Insurance Co. Ltd. has preferred the present First Appeal. 2. Mr. H.G. Majmudar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that the learned tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs. 6,60,000/- to the original claimants though the original claim was Rs. 3,00,000/- only. 2.1 Mr. H.G. Majmudar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has further submitted that even otherwise, the amount awarded by the learned tribunal is on higher side. It is submitted that the learned tribunal has materially erred in assessing the supervisory income at Rs. 3500/- per month, which is very high. 2.2. Mr. H.G. Majmudar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has further submitted that the learned tribunal has materially erred in applying multiplier of 15 while awarding future loss of income. By making above submissions, it is requested to allow the present appeal accordingly. 3. Heard Mr. Majmudar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant at length. 3.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that as such, on appreciation of evidence the learned tribunal has held that the original claimants are entitled to Rs. 6,60,000/- towards compensation for the death of deceased Shamjibhai and it is observed by the learned tribunal that the amount of Rs. 6,60,000/- awarded towards compensation can be said to be "just compensation". Therefore, irrespective of the amount claimed in the claim petition, the claimants are entitled to "just compensation". 3.2. The aforesaid view is supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ibrahim v. Raju and others, reported in (2011) 10 SCC 634 . Therefore, it cannot be said that the learned tribunal has committed any error in awarding Rs. 6,60,000/- to the original claimants which can be said to be "just compensation". 3.3. 3.2. The aforesaid view is supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ibrahim v. Raju and others, reported in (2011) 10 SCC 634 . Therefore, it cannot be said that the learned tribunal has committed any error in awarding Rs. 6,60,000/- to the original claimants which can be said to be "just compensation". 3.3. Now, so far as the amount awarded by the learned tribunal towards future loss of income is concerned, the learned tribunal has considered the loss of dependency at Rs. 3500/- per month, which in the facts and circumstances cannot be said to be too exorbitant and/or on higher side, which requires interference of this Court. 4. On considering the entire evidence on record and the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal, this Court is of the opinion that amount of Rs. 6,60,000/- awarded by the learned tribunal can be said to be "just compensation" and therefore, the same is not required to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. 5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present appeal fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.