JUDGMENT : R.M. Chhaya, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 20.04.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Kachchh at Bhuj in MACP No. 259/16, the insurance company has preferred this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). 2. Heard Mr. Rathin Raval, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Nishit Bhalodi, learned advocate for the original claimants. Though served, no one appears for the other respondents. Perused the original record and proceedings of the Tribunal. 3. The following facts emerge from the record of the appeal- 3.1 That one Ramabhai Aachubhai Khoyala was driving his motorcycle bearing registration no. GJ-12-AH-0690 in a moderate speed on the left side of the road on 12.07.2016. When the motorcycle reached the place of accident, one Innova car bearing registration no. GJ-12-DC-0602 being driven in rash and negligent manner and in excessive speed came from opposite direction and dashed with the motorcycle. The deceased sustained serious fatal injuries and succumbed to the same. FIR was lodged with jurisdictional police station at exhibit 33. It was the case of the original claimants that the deceased was 32 years old on the date of the accident. It was further the case of the original claimants that the deceased was an artisan for making leather items such as mojadis, chappal, purse, letter box, key-chain, etc. and was supplying them to one NGO named Khamir Trust, Lakhond and was earning Rs. 30,000/-. One of the original claimant was examined at exhibit 25. One of the person from NGO Mr. Harish Hurmade was examined at exhibit 28 and the original claimants also relied upon documentary evidence such as FIR at exhibit 33, panchnama of the scene of the accident at exhibit 35, PM report at exhibit 36, charge-sheet at exhibit 37, I-card issued by the Development Commissioner-Handicrafts (Ministry of Textiles) at exhibit 32, income certificate at exhibit 29, Aadhar card of the deceased at exhibit 38, ledger of Khamir NGO at exhibit 30. The tribunal after appreciation of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased was an artisan in leather products and considering the evidence on record and relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Neeta V. Division Manager, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, reported in 2015 ACJ 598 SC, considering the year of accident, i.e., 2016, determined the income of the deceased at Rs. 11,000/- and gave prospective income to the tune of 40% and applying multiplier of 16, ultimately awarded Rs. 23,65,000/- (rounded figure) as compensation under the head of loss of dependency and following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 , awarded additional compensation of Rs. 70,000/- in total under different conventional heads including funeral expenses and thus awarded total compensation of Rs. 24,35,000/- with 9% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation and being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 4. The claimants had filed an application under section 166 of the Act and claimed compensation of Rs. 75,00,000/-. 5. Mr. Raval, learned advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal has erred in believing that the income of the deceased was Rs. 11,000/-. Mr. Raval contended that on one hand the Tribunal did not believe the evidence on income and came to the conclusion that the original claimants have not been able to prove the income of the deceased and only minimum wages standard has to be applied. According to Mr. Raval, the income of Rs. 11,000/- as determined by the Tribunal on mere guesswork is an error apparent and is a result of wrong appreciation of evidence on record. Though the ground of negligence was raised in the memo of the appeal, the said ground is not pressed by the learned advocate for the appellant. On the aforesaid grounds, Mr. Raval contended that the appeal be entertained and allowed and the impugned judgment and award be modified accordingly. 6. Per contra, Mr. Bhalodi, learned advocate appearing for the original claimants have supported the impugned judgment and award. Mr. Bhalodi contended that the Tribunal has committed no error in determining the income of the deceased at Rs. 11,000/- per month. Mr. Raval contended that the appeal be entertained and allowed and the impugned judgment and award be modified accordingly. 6. Per contra, Mr. Bhalodi, learned advocate appearing for the original claimants have supported the impugned judgment and award. Mr. Bhalodi contended that the Tribunal has committed no error in determining the income of the deceased at Rs. 11,000/- per month. Mr. Bhalodi contended that the income certificate as well as the deposition of the representative of the NGO at exhibit 28, leaves no room of doubt that the income of the deceased was in fact more than Rs. 11,000/- as determined by the Tribunal. Mr. Bhalodi contended that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has correctly come to the conclusion that the income of the deceased was at least Rs. 11,000/- per month. Mr. Bhalodi therefore contended that the appeal being meritless, deserves to be dismissed. 7. No other or further submissions have been made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 8. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record, it transpires that one Harish Hurmada was working in the NGO at Khamir Trust is examined at exhibit 28. He has deposed before the Tribunal that the deceased was a master artist in leather work and used to design mojadi, leather bag, pouch, purse, belt, leather mirror, hand fans etc. He has also deposed that the deceased used to earn Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The certificate at exhibit 29 issued by Khamir NGO also indicates that the deceased was earning Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 30,000/-. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the deceased was working with the NGO but was a freelancer attached to the NGO. He has also deposed in his cross-examination that the artists are exempted under the Income Tax Act as the work undertaken by them is handicraft. He has also stated that in the HR department, he has to see what are the earnings of every such artist. Upon re-appreciation of the oral evidence of Harish Hurmada, representative from the NGO Khamir, it is proved that the deceased was a skilled master artist in leather work. The account of the NGO also indicates that the deceased was attached with the said NGO. Upon re-appreciation of the oral evidence of Harish Hurmada, representative from the NGO Khamir, it is proved that the deceased was a skilled master artist in leather work. The account of the NGO also indicates that the deceased was attached with the said NGO. It can be seen from exhibit 32 that the Development Commissioner-Handicrafts, Ministry of Textile had issued I-card to the deceased being an artist of leather work since 30.04.2010. 9. Upon re-appreciation of the aforesaid evidence, though it is averred in the claim petition that the income of the deceased was Rs. 30,000/- per month is not proved. The deposition of Mr. Harish Hurmade at exhibit 28, the I-card at exhibit 32 and the accounts which are relied upon by the original claimants clearly establish the fact that the deceased was a skilled artist in leather work. The region of Kutch is known for its art in leather. The documents at exhibits 28 and 29 clearly show that the deceased used to supply finished goods such as mojadi, leather bag, pouch, purse, belt, leather mirror, hand fans etc. to the said NGO Khamir Trust. 10. Taking into consideration the evidence, though the Tribunal has not believed that the income of the deceased was Rs. 30,000/- per month as asserted by the original claimants in the claim petition, the question therefore which arises in this appeal is that whether the Tribunal has correctly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 11,000/- or not. The contention raised by Mr. Raval, learned advocate for the appellant that in absence of evidence, the minimum wages standard prevailing on the date of the accident is to be applied, would apply when no evidence is there. Cumulatively considering the deposition of the authorised person of the NGO of Khamir Trust at exhibit 28, the certificate issued by the NGO at exhibit 29 as well as the copies of the extracts of the ledger of the deceased, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has wrongly determined the income of the deceased at Rs. 11,000/- per month. Upon re-appreciation of the aforesaid evidence, we endorse the view of the Tribunal and in facts of this case, the minimum standard would not ipso facto apply. The Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has correctly determined the income of the deceased at Rs. 11,000/- per month. Upon re-appreciation of the aforesaid evidence, we endorse the view of the Tribunal and in facts of this case, the minimum standard would not ipso facto apply. The Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has correctly determined the income of the deceased at Rs. 11,000/- per month and has correctly awarded a sum of Rs. 24,35,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. as compensation. As the issue of negligence is not pressed, the same is not required to be considered even though such ground is raised in the appeal. 11. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the opinion that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just compensation and calls for no interference by this Court in exercise of this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. The appeal therefore fails and the same is dismissed and the award of the Tribunal stands confirmed. However, there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. The Registry is directed to transmit the original record and proceedings back to the Tribunal forthwith. 12. As the main appeal is dismissed, the Civil Application would not survive and the same stands disposed of.