JUDGMENT P K Lohra, J. -Appellant-Claimants have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'Act') seeking enhancement of compensation determined and awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner (for short, 'Tribunal') by its judgment and award dated 10th of April 2018. The learned Tribunal, by the impugned judgment and award, while adjudicating claim of the claimants under Section 166 of the Act, quantified and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.52,89,090/- under different heads with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition. 2. Facts in brief are that on 9th of February, 2013, when deceased Maganlal Chandak was returning to his home from wool market (Oon Mandi) riding on motorcycle No.RJ-07-SH-0058, at about 1:00 PM, Truck No.RJ-07-GB-0539 hit the motorcycle behind its back near Hanuman Temple on Pugal Road. As per the appellants truck was driven rashly and negligently by its driver, and therefore after hitting the bike it crushed Maganlal to death on the spot. The accident was reported to police, and FIR No.55/2013 was registered at Police Station Naya Sahar, District Bikaner. After investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against second respondent-Danaram, driver of the truck. Attributing negligence to the truck driver second respondent, which was owned by first respondent and insured with respondent No.3, appellants claimed total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.7,23,32,704 under different heads. 3. Learned Tribunal issued notices to the respondents but nobody appeared on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2, therefore, ex-parte proceedings were taken against them. Respondent No.3, Insurance Company, contested the claim and in its return raised certain objections on the anvil of non-possession of valid driving licence, permit and fitness certificate etc. With these objections, the Insurance Company claimed absolvement from its liability to pay compensation. 4. Learned Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings, settled three issues for determination. For substantiating their claim, appellants examined three witnesses and produced thirty-seven documents, which were exhibited. The evidence tendered by the appellants remained uncontroverted inasmuch no documentary or oral evidence was tendered by the insurer. Learned Tribunal, while adjudicating the claim petition, at the threshold, examined the evidence for deciding Issue No.1 regarding rash and negligent driving of the insured vehicle. For substantiating their claim, appellants examined three witnesses and produced thirty-seven documents, which were exhibited. The evidence tendered by the appellants remained uncontroverted inasmuch no documentary or oral evidence was tendered by the insurer. Learned Tribunal, while adjudicating the claim petition, at the threshold, examined the evidence for deciding Issue No.1 regarding rash and negligent driving of the insured vehicle. Although appellant No.1 was not eye-witness but the accident is proved by A.W.2 Shyam Sunder, who was an eye-witness to the accident and has specifically stated that accident was caused by the offending vehicle driven by its driver rashly and negligently. Learned Tribunal, while relying on the testimony of A.W.2 and other documents, tendered in evidence by the appellants, decided Issue No.1 in favour of appellants and against the insurer. Issue No.2, which was settled on the basis of objections of insurer, was decided against it as no evidence was tendered on its behalf. Adverting to Issue No.3, regarding quantum of compensation, the learned Tribunal considered the age of deceased, his educational qualification and income, which was duly proved by evidence of Chartered Accountant A.W.3, Vinod Damani. While relying on all these documentary and oral evidence, the learned Tribunal reasonably assessed the income of deceased as Rs.3,97,645/- per annum and by applying the ratio decidendi laid down in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 13 Scale 12 added 25% future prospects for determining income of the deceased to the tune of Rs.4,97,056.25 per annum. Thereafter, relying on the judgment in Sarla Verma & Ors. V/s. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 , one-forth deduction was made for personal expenses on the basis of number of dependents and applying multiplier of fourteen worked out compensation loss of dependency to the tune of Rs.52,19,090/-. In addition to the compensation for loss of dependency, learned Tribunal by relying on ratio in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), allowed compensation for loss of consortium, loss of estate, funeral expenses and non-pecuniary damages to the tune of Rs.70,000/-. Accordingly, by adding amount of Rs.70,000/-, total amount of compensation was quantified to the tune of Rs.52,89,090/-. 5. I have heard leaned counsel for the appellants and perused impugned judgment & award. 6. Accordingly, by adding amount of Rs.70,000/-, total amount of compensation was quantified to the tune of Rs.52,89,090/-. 5. I have heard leaned counsel for the appellants and perused impugned judgment & award. 6. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment and award, in my opinion, the learned Tribunal, while deciding Issue No.3, has considered the entire evidence in right perspective and also applied the ratio decidendi of the binding legal precedents governing the province. A bare perusal of finding on Issue No.3, makes it abundantly clear that the learned Tribunal has examined the matter thoroughly for arriving at a just and reasonable compensation. Although the appellants have shown discontentment about the amount of compensation determined by learned Tribunal, but in overall fact scenario, I am afraid, plea of the appellants for enhancement of compensation is not founded on substantial grounds rather the same is based on hypothetical considerations. 7. In totality, if the amount of compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal is examined on the touchstone of Section 168 of the Act, then, in my view, same is satisfying the criteria of just and reasonable compensation. 8. True it is that the appellants have lost their breadwinner but then the learned Tribunal while assessing the amount of compensation has considered all the aspects objectively for awarding a reasonable compensation, which by no stretch of imagination be categorized as inadequate. Therefore, viewed from any angle, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and award. 9. Consequently, the appeal is rejected summarily.