S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.573/2010 Smt. Mintu Devi and ors. Vs. Buddhi Prakash Khatik and ors. Dated : 06.08.2010 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. Sandeep Mathur, for the appellants. *** Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation under the award, the appellants-claimants have beseeched to enhance the same. 2. An unfortunate accident occurred on 25th December, 2007 when Sitaram Meena was going on Motorcycle bearing registration No.RJ-14-AS-9555 from Jaipur to his village Roop-pura. It is allged that when he reached near Maliyon ki Dhani at about 11.30AM, one Mahindra Max Jeep bearing registration No.RJ 26-TA- 0059 driven by its driver rashly and negligently, came from the opposite direction and dashed against the Motorcycle, resulting into his death on the spot. Claimants-appellants filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal & Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Jaipur District, Jaipur, which was decreed and an amount of Rs.4,59,000/- has been awarded by the learned Tribunal in their favour. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. He has canvassed that the income of the deceased was Rs.4,500/- per month and the claimants produced a salary certificate (Ex.16), but despite there being ample evidence with regard to the income of the deceased, learned Tribunal found only Rs.3,000/- to be the monthly income of the deceased and thus erringly computed the quantum of compensation. In view of the salary certificate of the deceased, the quantum of compensation needs to be enhanced. 4. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the relevant material on record including the impugned award, it is noticed that albeit the claimants stated Rs.4,500/- to be the income of the deceased and also filed a salary certificate Ex.16, but neither they produced the person in evidence who issued the salary certificate nor proved the income by way of any other clinching documentary evidence. It is settled proposition of law that mere statement of fact is not the proof thereof. Learned Tribunal in absence of any clinching evidence with regard to the income, took Rs.3,000/- to be the monthly income of the deceased and after having applied the multiplier of 18 very rightly reckoned the loss of dependency. I do not find any irregularity or regularity having been committed by the learned Tribunal in passing the impugned award. The impugned award is found to be just and proper and the same warrants no intervention. 5. In view of the above, the appeal being devoid of any merit stands dismissed. 6. No order as to costs. (MAHESH BHAGWATI)J. Pcg