Judgment Loknath Prasad, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17th March, 1990 passed by Sri S.N. Gupta, Addl. Judicial Commissioner-cum-Tribunal, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Case, Ranchi, in Motor vehicle Compensation case No. 41/84 thereby and thereunder the claimants were awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,62,000.00 . 2. The fact, in short, for the purpose of this appeal is that it is the case of the claimants who are widow and minor daughter of the deceased, namely, Jogendra Pd. Singh that on 9.3.84 the deceased was going in a Matador vehicle beering No. BHM 1186 from Tatanagar to Ranchi and on the way he met with an accident as he was peeping out of the window resulting in his death. It was alleged that the deceased was about 28 years old and he was getting salary to the tune of Rs. 475.00 per month. Besides, due to nature of the job he used to make some tour and used to earn some amount by way of T.A. The appellant-Insurance company contested the case in the Court below but admitted that the vehicle involved in the accident was properly insured. But denied the liability on various grounds. The trial Court assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 475.00 per month and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,62,000.00 . Against that the appellant-insurance company has preferred this appeal. 3. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, the only point urged on behalf of the Insurance Company was that the amount of compensation as awarded by the trial Court is apparently excessive and without any justification and further the liability of the Insurance Company is limited. So far liability point is concerned, this point was not raised in the Court below nor any specific finding was recorded. 4. Regarding quantum of compensation, admittedly the trial Court assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 475.00 and surprisingly the entire amount and the income through T.A. was arbitrarily calculated as total dependency to the family and it was multiplied by 40 times by the trial Court, apparently appears to be illegal and exhorbitant. 5. Admittedly the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 475.00 . In that view of the matter, after deducting 1/3rd to be the incidental expenditure of the deceased, the dependancy comes to Rs. 5. Admittedly the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 475.00 . In that view of the matter, after deducting 1/3rd to be the incidental expenditure of the deceased, the dependancy comes to Rs. 325.00 per month, that is, in all Rs. 4000.00 per year. Admittedly the deceased was aged about 20 years of so and if the amount of Rs. 4000.00 is to be multiplied by 16, then it cames to Rs. 64000.00 . Admittedly the deceased simply left behind a daughter, Counsel for the respondent submitted that some weightage should also be given that the deceased was also earning some extra money due to income through T.A. So the actual dependency comes to Rs. 64,000.00 and if some amount is to be added, then, in my opinion, Rs. 70,000.00 should have been the amount to be awarded as compensation to the claimants. 6. Under the circumstances, the amount of Rs. 1,62,000.00 as compensation awarded by the Court below appears to be highly excessive and arbitrary and, thus, it is set aside and the compensation is assessed at Rs. 70,000.00 (seventy thousand) which the, claimants-respondents are entitled to receive from, the Insurance-Company, that is, the appellant, less the amount already paid or deposited alongwith interest 12% per annum from the date of application till payment. 7. This. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.