Judgment Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is insurer's appeal against the Award dated 23-01-2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal IIst Addl. District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 36 of 2004. 2. Claimants Smt. Seema Rani and Eshan Chawala, who are widow and minor son of deceased Vijay Kumar Chawala, claimed compensation of Rs. 11,15,000/- for his death"in the motor accident on 04-12-2003, when his motorcycle was dashed by the offending vehicle Tata Sumo bearing registration No. DL4C-F-8242 resulting in serious injuries to Vijay Kumar• Chawala, who succumbed to those injuries during the course of his treatment in the hospital. On the report of the accident by eye-witness Pankaj Chawala, a case was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle Tata Sumo at Police Station Gadarpur at Crime No. 376 of 2003 for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304 of the LP.C. The claimants pleaded that deceased Vijay Kumar Chawla was running a Photo Studio and was earning Rs. 6,0001- per month. 3. The insurer and owner of the offending vehicle Tata Sumo contested the claim and denied their liability to pay compensation to the claimants. The owner of the offending vehicle pleaded that the driver of Tata Sumo was not responsible for the accident and the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the deceased Motorcyclist himself. The insurer, on the other hand, pleaded that the driver of Tata Sumo was not holding a valid driving license and the Tata Sumo was being plied in breach of the policy conditions. 4. The claimants examined PW1 Smt. Seema Rani and PW2 Pankaj Chawla in support of their claim, whereas the driver-cum-owner ofTata Sumo examined himself as DW1 in rebuttal. The insurer, however, did not examine any witness. 5. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties, held that deceased Vijay Kumar Chawla died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle Tata Sumo; and, as the offending vehicle Tata Sumo was insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd., the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 6. Considering the evidence led by the claimants about the income of the deceased, including his Income Tax Return, the Tribunal assessed his income at Rs. 6. Considering the evidence led by the claimants about the income of the deceased, including his Income Tax Return, the Tribunal assessed his income at Rs. 60,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd of the said amount as the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs. 40,000/- per annum. By multiplying the above amount of Rs. 40,000/- with the appropriate multiplier and by awarding amount wider the other permissible heads, the Tribunal, in all, awarded compensation of Rs. 7,27,000/- to the claimants. Interest @ 6% per annum on the above amount of compensation was also awarded from the date of the Award till the date of actual payment. 7. Mr. Naresh Pant, the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in holding the driver of the offending vehicle Tata Sumo, solely, responsible for the accident, whereas, in fact, it was a case of contributory negligence as the deceased Motorcyclist himself also contributed to the accident. The learned counsel further submitted that the compensation of Rs. 7,27,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. 8. Mr. G.C. Lakhchaura, the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 & 2 (claimants), on the other hand, supported the Award and submitted that, in view of the fact that widow of the deceased was aged 24 years and the minor son was only 3 years of age at the time of the accident, the compensation of Rs. 7,27,000/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and, more so, in view of the fact that the Tribunal has awarded 10% of the compensation to the parents of the deceased. 9. Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, the learned counsel for respondent No.3 (owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle Tata Sumo) also supported the Award. 10. So far as the appellant's submission about the contributory negligence of the Motorcyclist is concerned, the Tribunal has given sound reasons in the Award to come to the conclusion that the driver of the offending vehicle Tata Sumo, alone, was responsible for the accident. 10. So far as the appellant's submission about the contributory negligence of the Motorcyclist is concerned, the Tribunal has given sound reasons in the Award to come to the conclusion that the driver of the offending vehicle Tata Sumo, alone, was responsible for the accident. Considering the evidence of the eye-witness PW2 Pankaj Chawala; the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle Tata Sumo DW1 Manjeet Singh; the contents of the First Information Report; and the other relevant material available on record, we do not find any reason to come to a different conclusion that the one arrived at by the Tribunal on the question of the sole negligence of the driver of the Tata Sumo for the accident. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Motorcyclist also contributed to the accident. We, therefore, affirm the finding recorded by the Tribunal holding the driver of the offending vehicle Tata Sumo solely responsible for the accident. 11. The appellant's next submission that the compensation of Rs. 7,27,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, being excessive is to be examined in the context of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of T. N. State Transport Corpn. Ltd. Vs. S. Rajapriya and others reported in (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 236, wherein it was observed in paras 8 to 10 : "8. The assessment of damages to compensate the dependants is beset with difficulties because from the nature of things, it has to take into account many imponderables, e.g., the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependants, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount that he would have contributed to the dependants during that period, the chances that the deceased may not have lived or the dependants may not live up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that the deceased might have got better employment or income or might have lost his employment or income together. 9. 9. The manner of arriving at the damages is to ascertain the net income of deceased available for the support of himself and his dependants, and to deduct therefrom such part of his income as the deceased was accustomed to spend upon himself, as regards both self maintenance and pleasure, and to ascertain what part of his net income the deceased was accustomed to spend for the benefit of the dependants. Then that should be capitalized by multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number of years' purchase. 10. Much of the calculation necessarily remains in the realm of hypothesis "and in that region arithmetic is a good servant but a bad master" since there are so often many imponderables. In every case "it is the overall picture that matters", and the court must try to assess as best as it can the loss suffered." 12. Deceased Vijay Kumar Chawala was aged about 27 -28 years on the date of the accident. His widow claimant No.1 Smt. Seema Rani was 24 years of age and their minor son Eshan Chawala was aged 3 years only. 13. The finding recorded by the Tribunal about the income of the deceased is founded on the income of the deceased disclosed in his Income Tax Return filed for the Assessment Year prior to the year of the accident. As no evidence to the contra was adduced before the Tribunal either by the owner or the insurer of the offending vehicle Tata Sumo on the question of income of the deceased, the Tribunal, in our opinion has not committed any illegality in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 60,000/- per annum on the basis of the income disclosed in the Income Tax Return. Similarly, the assessment of the claimants' dependency at Rs. 40,000/ - per annum, after deducting 1/3rd of the income of the deceased, cannot be found fault with. 14. We are, therefore, satisfied that the compensation of Rs. 7,27,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case and cannot be termed as 'excessive' so as to warrant reduction in this appeal filed by the Insurance Company. 15. As we do not find any infirmity in the impugned Award, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 16. The amount of Rs. 15. As we do not find any infirmity in the impugned Award, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 16. The amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only), deposited by the appellant Insurance Company as mandatory deposit under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act while filing this appeal, be remitted to the concerning Claims Tribunal immediately. 17. No order as to costs.