Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. Both these appeals have arisen out of award of compensation passed and judgment delivered in M.V. Claim Case no. 16 of 1996 on 25.2.1999. 2. The claimants of the case are the parents of deceased Vijay Niranjan, an I.F.S. probationer, who died due to motor accident in which the vehicle having registration no. H.R. 45-0-114 belonging to State of Haryana Roadways had been involved. The vehicle in quiestion was insured with the appellant-United India Insurance Co. Ltd. of M.A. no. 159 of 1999. On consideration of materials on record an amount of Rs. 24 lacs with interest @ 12% p.a. has been awarded. The same is being challenged in both these appeals. Both the appellants have challenged the quantum and determination of the amount of compensation. At the very first instance. it must be mentioned that on the basis of the recent judgment of the Apex Court the Insurance Company is debarred from challenging the quantum, which is purported to be on merit, unless permission is being taken under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the present case the question of permission does not arise as the owner of the vehicle i.e. the State of Haryana Roadways has consistently challenged and contested the claim case. In that way, the appeal filed by the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. i.e. M.A. no. 159 of 1999 becomes non-maintainable as has already been held by this Bench in M.A. no. 76 of 2002 disposed of on 1.7.2003. [Reported in 2003 (3) PLJR 599 ]. The same position had occurred before the Apex Court in the case of H.S. Ahammed anr. vs. Irfan Ahammed & anr. with Maqbool Pasha & anr. as reported in 2002 AIR SCW 2788 equivalent to 2002 (6) SCC 252 wherein also the Apex Court on the above ground the name of the Insurance Company was asked to be struck off from the appellants list and then the matter was heard in between the owner of the vehicle and the claimants. The same is the case in the present two appeals also. Even if M.A. no. 159 of 1999 becomes redundant one in view of the above principle as already mentioned then also M.A. no. 252 of 1999 is very much maintainable wherein quantum and determination of the same has been challenged by the owner of the vehicle. 3. The same is the case in the present two appeals also. Even if M.A. no. 159 of 1999 becomes redundant one in view of the above principle as already mentioned then also M.A. no. 252 of 1999 is very much maintainable wherein quantum and determination of the same has been challenged by the owner of the vehicle. 3. While determining the quantum of compensation it appears from the impugned judgment that the income of the deceased to be accrued in future has been construed for the purpose of determination of quantum and then a multiplier of 18 has been used but nowhere any consideration has been made regarding the age of the mother or the parents who were the claimants in the case. There cannot be any windfall gain for the death of their son when it appears that the father of the deceased had retired and was getting his pensionary benefits and that accounts he was definitely more than 60 years of age at the relevant time and the mothers age had not come up in evidence as has been stated in the Bar. For the purpose of determination of quantum in such sort of cases when the dependant is a limited one because of the age of the parents of the deceased then it has been held in very many cases including the case already mentioned above to the effect that while; the determination of quantum, the age of the mother and that of the deceased are to be compared and whichever is found to be less is to be construed for the purpose of determination of multiplier as per the Schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act. For the purpose of determination of income of the deceased future increments may be considered but that cannot be construed to the extent of his would be salary at the time of his retirement or in a very remote future. On the face of the jugments of the Apex Court as reported in 1994 (2) SCC 176 (General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivendrum, vs. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) & Ors.), 1996 (4) SCC 362 (U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and ors. vs. Trilok Chandra & Ors.), 2002 (6) 281 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & ors. On the face of the jugments of the Apex Court as reported in 1994 (2) SCC 176 (General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivendrum, vs. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) & Ors.), 1996 (4) SCC 362 (U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and ors. vs. Trilok Chandra & Ors.), 2002 (6) 281 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & ors. vs. Patricia Jean Mahajan and Ors.) and 2002 AIR SCW 2788 (H.S. Ahammed and another vs. lrfan Ahammed and anr with Maqbool Pasha & anr.) are very clear as to how in such sort of cases quantum is to be evaluated. On the face of the records I find that the quantum which has been fixed by the court below is very excessive which cannot be sustainable in the eye of law. 4. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment in respect of the quantum alone is hereby set aside and the matter is sent back to the Tribunal again for consideration of the quantum matter afresh on the basis of the above judgments, as mentioned above, and also after hearing the counsel for both the parties. The matter should be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a copy of this order from the side of either of the parties or from the date of receipt of a copy of this order from this Court. 5. Now it appears that the death was of 1996. In that way, except the interim compensation no other amounts have been made available to the claimants. In that view of the matter, considering the sufferance of the mother of the deceased it is hereby ordered that the amounts deposited under the statutory clause of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act in both these appeals may be released in favour of the mother of the deceased, who is one of the claimants in the case, on her proper identification before the Registry. These amounts shall be adjusted towards the final assessment being made on the award of compensation. This disposes of both the appeals.