JUDGMENT P.K. Lohra, J. - Appellant-claimants feeling dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 7th of September, 2016 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirohi (for short, 'learned Tribunal), has laid this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'Act'). The afflictions of the appellants are confined to quantum of compensation determined and awarded by the learned Tribunal and they have craved for enhancement of compensation on various counts on account of death of their bread winner in an accident. 2. Brief facts are that on 8th of March, 2016 in the evening at about 6:30 when deceased Dinesh Kumar on his way riding bicycle on his side he was knocked down by a rashly and negligently driven Truck trolla coming from opposite direction entering in wrong side, which resulted in falling of Dinesh Kumar and sustaining grievious and simple injuries on head, face, left eye etc and bleeding. He was taken to Govt. Hospital, Sirohi from where he was referred to higher centre after first aid but in transit he expired. As per version of the appellants, accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the trolla driver, who after accident fled away from the spot leaving the trolla there. A report of the said accident was lodged at Police Station, Sirohi and after investigation, chargesheet against the trolla driver was filed in the concerned Court. Appellants, in the claim petition, in all, under different heads, claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 56,78,000, jointly and severally from the respondents. 3. After service of summons, despite service respondent Nos.1 & 2 remained absent. The claim petition was contested by insurer respondent No.3 denying most of the averments of claim petition in toto. It was the case of the insurer that the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of the insured vehicle but on account of own fault of the deceased who was crossing road and in order to save his life driver of the insured vehicle applied brakes but these efforts went in vein. It was further case of the insurer that the driver of offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident and it was being plied even without fitness and permit as such insurer is not liable to pay compensation. It was further case of the insurer that the driver of offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident and it was being plied even without fitness and permit as such insurer is not liable to pay compensation. By narrating all these facts, the insurer pleaded for rejection of the claim petition. 4. Learned Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings, settled three issues for determination. To substantiate the claim, from the side of appellant-claimants Kanta Devi AW1 appeared and examined eye-witness Indersingh AW2. No evidence was produced on behalf of respondent-insurer either oral or documentary in support of its case. The learned Tribunal, after hearing final arguments, deciding issue Nos.1 & 2 in favour of appellant-claimants determined and awarded compensation under different heads. Issue No.3, pertaining to the objections raised by insurer, was decided against it, and while quantifying the amount of compensation the learned Tribunal fastened the liability to pay compensation jointly and severally on non-claimants No.1 to 3. 5. Espousing appellants' cause for enhancement of compensation, it is submitted by learned counsel that deceased Dinesh Kumar was 32 years and 8 months of age at the time of his death and being Mason used to earn Rs. 15,000 per month by doing work of building construction and was having income of Rs. 70,000 from agriculture despite that learned Tribunal wrongly assessed the monthly income based on minimum wages as such compensation deserves to be enhanced. Learned counsel further submits that proper compensation was not awarded by the learned Tribunal under different heads such as loss of assets, funeral expenses, love & affection and interest on the claim amount was awarded only 8% per anum, which merits enhancement. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned judgment & award. 7. In the instant case, it is asserted on behalf of claimants that the deceased was 32 years and 8 months old and was doing mason work and thereby earning 15,000 per month and he was also having income of Rs. 70,000 per annum from agriculture but neither they have produced any sufficient or authentic evidence in respect of income of the deceased from construction work nor given any details of income from agriculture. 70,000 per annum from agriculture but neither they have produced any sufficient or authentic evidence in respect of income of the deceased from construction work nor given any details of income from agriculture. So far as Ex.33 Jamabandi, produced in documentary evidence, is concerned, it depicts about the land being of joint Khatedari and the claimants have failed to submit any proof of income of deceased from agriculture. The learned Tribunal, upon consideration of the evidence, recorded its definite finding that at the time of death deceased was below 40 years of age and taking his income as Rs. 5,500 per month, i.e. Rs. 66,000 per annum, 40% was added to that for future prospects and worked out annual income of deceased as Rs. 92,400. Thereafter, V of the amount was deducted on account of five members being dependent on him and applying the multiplier of 16 awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 11,08,800. Learned Tribunal also awarded consolidated amount of Rs. 40,000 for pain, agony loss of love and affection as well as consortium. Besides that, a sum of Rs. 15,000 was awarded under the head 'Loss of Estate', Rs. 15,000 for funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000 for transportation and finally quantified compensation to the tune of Rs. 11,83,800. 8. Upon perusal of impugned judgment and award, in my opinion, learned Tribunal, while deciding Issue Nos.1 & 2 as well as Issue No.3 has not committed any error in appreciation of evidence. The issue relating to quantum of compensation is also decided by the learned Tribunal in the backdrop of available material, earnings of the deceased. 9. In totality, the amount of compensation assessed by learned Tribunal is just and reasonable satisfying the parameters envisaged under Section 168 of the Act. 10. In view thereof, I find no force to interfere with the impugned judgment and award. Consequently, the appeals fails and same is hereby rejected.