AMITAVA LALA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is arising out of judgment and order passed by the concerned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on 26th March, 2008. ( 2 ) THE contention of the appellant/insurance company is that the report of the medical board is not proved to determine the disability to the extent of 60%. Moreover, there should be 1/3rd deduction in view of the ratio of the judgment of Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie and another, 2005 59 ALR (SC) 626. ( 3 ) WE have gone through the judgment and order impugned hereunder to come to a definite finding in this cause even at the time of admission since we find the scope is limited. We find that the deceased is aged about 20 years. His monthly income is rupees two thousand per month on account of business of milk and agriculture as per evidence before the Tribunal. However, on the basis of medical boards report, Tribunal ultimately arrived at Rs. 1,200/- per month as loss of earning being 60% disability and thereafter come to a composite finding with regard to loss of income, disability and medical expenses and awarded compensation for an amount of Rs. 2,66,865/ -. ( 4 ) SO far as the deduction part is concerned, although, we are aware that the same is guide but not ready reckoner, yet, if we go through the note given below the schedule, it will be seen only where it will be followed : "note : The amount of compensation so arrived at in the case of fatal accident claims shall be reduced by 1/3rd in consideration of the expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive. " ( 5 ) THE judgment which has been referred and relied upon by the appellant also speaks the same taking a general view. However, in that case the 1/3rd deduction is made from the net income. In any event, Supreme Court at the time of passing of judgment never made it ratio decidendi to apply in each and every case including the cases of injury. It has been taken as a normal view about the deprivation of income. However, in that case the 1/3rd deduction is made from the net income. In any event, Supreme Court at the time of passing of judgment never made it ratio decidendi to apply in each and every case including the cases of injury. It has been taken as a normal view about the deprivation of income. However, in paragraph 18 it has been specified that normal rule about the deprivation of income is directly not applicable in such cases where agricultural income is the source of injureds income. In this particular case, the injured is agriculturist as well as doing business of milk. ( 6 ) THEREFORE, taking into account entire facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the order which is impugned hereunder, cannot be said to be so fatal that the appeal will be admitted, consequently the same is dismissed without imposing any costs. ( 7 ) INCIDENTALLY, the appellant prayed that the statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/-made before this Court for preferring this appeal be remitted back to the concerned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal as expeditiously as possible in order to adjust the same with the amount of compensation to be paid to the claimants, however, such prayer is allowed. Appeal Dismissed. .