( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred challenging the quantum of award by the Insurance Company, which has been assessed as Rs. 2,47,700 inclusive of other damages. ( 2 ) LT has been contended that since the appellant was a casual labourer the assessment of amount of income for a sum of Rs. 1,900 per month is not appropriate. Secondly, the reduction 1/3rd amount being personal expenses of the deceased is not appropriate in view of the decision of Donat Louis Mechado v. L Ravindra. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to us, there is a factual difference between the referred case of the Supreme Court and the present one. In present case only the parents of a deceased bachelor of the age of 19 years are the claimants and in that case the parents and unmarried daughter of a deceased bachelor of the age of 31 years were the claimants. Therefore, the Supreme Court after enhancing the claim, made a deduction of 2/3rd on the understanding of the fact that the bachelor would have spent 2/3rd amount of the earningforthefamily. Therefore, such decision, made on the factum of the case available there, is not in the teeth of the note underthe Second Schedule of the statute, wherein reduction 1/3rd as personal expenses has been provided irrespective of social status of the deceased, i. e. married or unmarried. A judicial verdict based on a particular factual probability cannot override the statutory provision, even though the same can be treated as guide. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with awarded quantum of compensation as given by the Tribunal. As such, the appeal cannot be admitted. Hence the same is dismissed. ( 4 ) NO order is passed as to costs. ( 5 ) INCIDENTALLY the appellant Insurance Company prayed that the statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000 made before this Court for preferring this appeal shall be remitted back to the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as expeditiously as possible in order to adjust with the amount of compensation to be paid to the claimant, however, such prayer is allowed. . .