IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 1417 of 2001 (Old No. 874/1995) 1- Rajendra Kumar 2- Rajesh Kumar 3- Vijai Kumar All sons of Sri Shyam Sunder, r/o Satta Bazar, Rewari, Haryana ... Claimants- Appellants Versus 1- U.P. State Road Transport Corporation through its General Manager 2- Depot Manager, Roorkee Depot, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation 3- Sri Udai Raj Singh, Driver, Roorkee Depot, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation. ... Opp. Parties Sri Piyush Garg, Advocate, for appellants. Sri D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate, for respondents. Dated: March 27, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, for enhancement of compensation, has been filed by the appellants- claimants against the judgment and award dated 29.5.1995 and 5.7.1995, passed by District & Sessions Judge, Haridwar, in M.A.C.T. Case No. 94 of 1994, Rajendra Kumar & others vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others, whereby the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the claimants. Heard learned counsel for the parties on admission and perused the record. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the impugned judgment and award, I am of the view that there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has discussed each and every point in great detail. The Tribunal has recorded categorical finding that income of deceased as claimed by the claimants has not been proved by any cogent and reliable evidence. The Tribunal has also recorded finding that claimants are major sons of the deceased and they are engaged in joint profession and they were not dependants upon the deceased. However, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the claimants due to death and the inconvenience caused to the claimants for the death of the deceased in the accident. The impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal does not require any interference by this Court. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP