JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice Subject matter of this appeal is the award, dated 1st June, 2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Shimla, H.P., (for short, the Tribunal), in Claim Petition No.56-S/2 of 2006, titled Anup Kumar and others vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, whereby the claim petition was allowed and compensation to the tune of Rs.11,00,000/-, alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment, was awarded in favour of the claimants, (for short, the impugned award). 2. Neither the claimants nor the driver challenged the impugned award on any count, thus, the same has attained finality so far as it relates to them. Feeling aggrieved, the Himachal Road Transport Corporation (for short, the HRTC), has challenged the impugned award on the sole ground that the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. 3. Thus, the only question needs to be determined in this appeal is – Whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive? 4. The answer is in the negative for reasons enumerated hereunder. The entire controversy revolves around issue No.2. 5. The Tribunal has made discussion, and rightly so, in paragraphs 9 to 14 of the impugned award. The deceased, at the time of accident, was 59 years of age, was a B-Class government contractor and, as pleaded, his monthly income was not less than 50,000/- from all sources including from agriculture. The Tribunal, after exercising guess work and making deductions, held that the monthly income of the deceased was not less than Rs.15,000/-. Though the income assessed by the Tribunal appears to be on the lower side in view of the income certificate Ext.PW-7/A, however, since the claimants have not questioned the same, therefore, the same is reluctantly upheld. 6. The Tribunal, keeping in view the age of the deceased, which was 59 years at the time of accident, has rightly applied the multiplier of 9. 7. In view of the above discussion and keeping in view the facts of the case, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal, while awarding compensation, has rightly made the assessment, which findings require no interference by this Court. 8. Having said so, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 7. In view of the above discussion and keeping in view the facts of the case, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal, while awarding compensation, has rightly made the assessment, which findings require no interference by this Court. 8. Having said so, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. The Registry is directed to release the compensation amount in favour of the claimants through their bank accounts strictly in terms of the impugned award.