ORDER 1. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. 2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 6.3.2006 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Godda, in the Title Claim Case No, 8 of 2004/10 of 2005, whereby he has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,29,000/- (rupees one lakh and twenty- nine thousand) for the death of the deceased caused in a motor vehicle accident. 3. The admitted facts of the case are that the deceased was going on his bicycle from Lalmatia to Bhagalpur for the purpose of selling coal. On the way, the deceased was dashed by a tractor bearing registration No. BR-1 IB 4556, as a result of which the deceased died on the spot. The insurance of the vehicle was not disputed by the appellant. Taking into consideration the annual earning of the deceased being Rs. 18,000/- the tribunal has awarded the aforesaid amount of compensation. 4. The appellant Insurance Company has challenged the quantum of compensation In this appeal, Inter alia, on the ground that as per the post-mortem report, the deceased was aged about 55 years and therefore, the multiplier of 11 ought not to have been applied for the purpose of determining the compensation. The learned Counsel further submitted that the vehicle was being driven in violation of the policy conditions. 5. From perusal of the judgment, it appears that the appellant insurance company examined one witness who investigated the matter and deposed that on investigation, he had calculated the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 1500/-. His investigation report was proved as Ext. A. Although. the claimants case was that the deceased earning was Rs. 2500/- per month, but the tribunal accepted the report submitted by the Surveyor of the appellant with regard to the income of the deceased and calculated the amount of compensation. 6. In the background of the facts aforesaid, we are of the view that the instant appeal filed by the Insurance company challenging the quantum of compensation is wholly misconceived and devoid of any substance. In fact, the appeal has been filed despite a series of decisions passed by the Supreme Court and this Court laying down the principles with regard to the right of the insurers preferring appeal particularly challenging the quantum of compensation. 7. In fact, the appeal has been filed despite a series of decisions passed by the Supreme Court and this Court laying down the principles with regard to the right of the insurers preferring appeal particularly challenging the quantum of compensation. 7. In the instant case, it is not the case; of appellant that the quantum of compensation determined by the tribunal is in violation of the statutory provisions, or in violation of the policy conditions, or beyond the statutory or contractual liability of the appellant. In that view of the matter, we record our serious exception to the manner in which the Insurance Company has filed this appeal against the judgment and award of the tribunal. 8. From perusal of the judgment, it appears that the deceased, a poor villager, used to earn his livelihood by selling coal on his bicycle, moving from one place to another. Mrs. Thankur submitted that the very selling of coal on bicycle is illegal. We are not supposed to enquire as to whether the deceased was earning his livelihood legally or illegally. Admittedly, according to the Surveyors report, the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 1500/-. In that view of the matter, the instant appeal ought not to have been filed by the insurance company challenging the quantum of compensation. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeals is dismissed. The appellant is permitted to withdraw the statutory amount deposited, by the appellant.