Amitava Lala, D.K.Arora, JJ. - (1.) UTTAR Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. (for short UPSRTC) preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 27th January, 2009 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Mainpuri on the grounds that such tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear out the matter; the driver himself was negligent; there was no master servant relationship between owner & driver and as per postmortem report age of deceased was 32 years. Upon going through Section 166 (2) of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, we are of the view that the tribunal at Mainpuri had jurisdiction to entertain, try and determine the claim petition of the present claimants who reside within the local limits of such tribunal. So far as negligence is concerned, no issue was framed before the tribunal. However, the tribunal had proceeded on the basis of corroborating evidence. As regards the master servant relationship, again no such issue was framed. However, only contention was made by the owner that driver was working on contractual basis. According to us, such ground alone cannot deny the claimants to have the compensation. So far as the age is concerned, school leaving certificate speaks that the deceased was of 26 years. Marks sheet of secondary school certificate shows the date of birth is 20th July, 1977 whereas postmortem report speaks about 32 years. The postmortem report gives tentative age when marks sheet of secondary school certificate gives exact date of birth, therefore, the Court cannot go by tentative age when the exact age is available. We find that the notional income was fixed and after giving deductions, the claim petition was allowed giving compensation of Rs. 4,39,000/- along with interest etc. Thus, upon going through the judgment and order as impugned before us, we do not find any infirmity. Hence, the appeal is dismissed even at the stage of admission, however, without imposing any cost. Incidentally, the appellant-corporation prayed that the statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- made before this Court for preferring this appeal be remitted back to the concerned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal as expeditiously as possible in order to adjust the same with the amount of compensation to be paid to the claimants, however, such prayer is allowed.;