JUDGMENT Prakash Gupta, J. - In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1490/2018. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 14.02.2018 (amended award dated 12.03.2018) passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Bharatpur (for short 'the Tribunal'), whereby, for death of one Dinesh Chand Pawan, the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 42,68,090/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the tribunal committed an error in awarding the amount of compensation on the higher side. It is submitted that the deceased was himself negligent and it was a case of contributory negligence. It is submitted that the tribunal committed grave error while making the calculation regarding the compensation amount as the learned tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 2,09,508/- per annum. The learned tribunal deducted one fourth of the said amount i.e. Rs. 54,877/-. Thus, the amount comes out as Rs. 1,64,631/-. After applying the multiplier of 17, the amount comes out as Rs. 27,98,727 whereas the tribunal assessed the amount as Rs. 33,58,472/-. On the said amount, 50% future prospects has been awarded by the tribunal. Thus, the amount is liable to be corrected. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the award has already been amended by the tribunal vide order dated 12.03.2018 and total amount of compensation has been awarded by the tribunal as Rs. 42,68,090/- in place of Rs. 51,07,708/-. Therefore, no correction is required to be made. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 5. The claim-petition was filed by the appellants seeking compensation on account of death of Dinesh Chand Pawan in the motor vehicle accident which occurred on 15.01.2013. The tribunal assessed the income of deceased as Rs. 18,473/- per month i.e. Rs. 2,21,676/- per annum on the basis of salary certificate (Ex.26). The tribunal has rightly deducted 10% of the income towards income tax, which comes to Rs. 2168/-. Thus, the total income of the deceased comes to Rs. 2,19,508(2,21,676- 2168) The tribunal has also awarded an addition of 50% of the said amount towards future prospects, which comes to Rs. 1,09,754/-. Hence, the income of the deceased assessed by the tribunal was Rs. 3,29,262 (2,19,508+1,09,754) per annum. 2168/-. Thus, the total income of the deceased comes to Rs. 2,19,508(2,21,676- 2168) The tribunal has also awarded an addition of 50% of the said amount towards future prospects, which comes to Rs. 1,09,754/-. Hence, the income of the deceased assessed by the tribunal was Rs. 3,29,262 (2,19,508+1,09,754) per annum. Keeping in view the number of the dependents, one fourth of the said income had been rightly deducted by the tribunal towards deceased's personal expenses. The deceased was aged about 29 years at the time of accident. Thus, the tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 17 to work out the dependency of the claimants. In this way, the dependency of the claimants assessed by the tribunal was Rs. 41,98,090 (3,29,262 x % x 17). The tribunal has also granted Rs. 70,000/- towards conventional heads. Thus, the tribunal has awarded a total amount of Rs. 42,68,090/- as compensation. 6. There is no evidence on record to show that there was contributory negligence on part of the deceased. Further, this issue was not raised before the tribunal. In view of this, the argument of contributory negligence cannot be sustained. 7. In the facts and circumstance of the present case, compensation granted by the tribunal is just and proper and the same does not require any enhancement. Consequently, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2338/2018 8. Learned counsel for the appellants seeks permission to withdraw this appeal. Permission, as sought for, is granted. 9. The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.