Judgment : 1. The appellant insurer has challenged validity and legality of the judgment and award dated 18 November 2009 passed by Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thane in MACP No.562 of 2005, whereby owner and insurer of the offending motor vehicle were held jointly and severally to pay compensation amount in the sum of Rs.3,85,500/-inclusive of 'no fault liability amount' along with interest @ 6% p.a. on the awarded sum on the date of order till realization thereon. 2. The facts briefly stated are that on 22 May 2004 at about 1.15 hours when Tejas Sadashiv Lugade was driving his motor cycle bearing registration no.MH-04/DL-7563 when it was near Babaji Patel wadi, at that time, offending motor vehicle Tata Sumo bearing registration no. MH-04/AA-4205 came in a very high speed and driven rashly and negligently dashed the motor cycle of Tejas. In the result, he was thrown of the motor cycle, fell down and sustained grievous head injury. Though he was removed to Chhatrapati Shivaji hospital, he succumbed to his injuries. Claimant is mother of said Tejas. She was awarded compensation on the basis that Tejas was young boy aged about 19 years, and was serving in Maharashtra Metal Works situated at Reay Road, opposite mankeshjwar temple, Mumbai-400010, and getting salary of Rs.3,000/-per month. Due to death of her son Tejas, claimant is unable to maintain herself and had claimed compensation in the sum of Rs.5,11,167/-against owner and insurer of the offending Tata Sumo vehicle. 3. Mr. S.S.Vidyarthi, learned counsel criticizing the impugned order on the point of quantum of compensation submitted that under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Schedule II of the Motor Vehicle Act, the pre-structured formula is provided for granting compensation in claim applications prescribed under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. According to Shri Vidyarthi, compensation ought to have been granted on the basis of annual income of Rs.15,000/- and not more. 4. This submission is opposed on behalf of the respondent on the ground that recent judicial precedents indicate that compensation has to be fair, equitable and just with relevance to growing inflation. The Tribunal cannot ignore ground realities, rising prices of essential commodities, growing inflation, diminishing value of rupee etc. and is duty bound to arrive at a reasonable, fair and equitable compensation. He defended the impugned order on the ground that it was just and proper. The Tribunal cannot ignore ground realities, rising prices of essential commodities, growing inflation, diminishing value of rupee etc. and is duty bound to arrive at a reasonable, fair and equitable compensation. He defended the impugned order on the ground that it was just and proper. 5. Hearing these submissions, perusing the record of the case as also the impugned judgment and award, it appears that learned Member of the Tribunal considered the facts of the case and arrived at notional income of Rs.3,000/-per month. While he was in the employment of Maharashtra Metal Works at Reay Road, Mumbai. That being so, compensation amount calculated on the basis that 1/3rd amount is deductible from the sum of Rs.3,000/- monthly income of the deceased. The calculation made of salary available for loss of dependency for mother was calculated at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. Multiplier was also correctly applied at 16' considering the age of the deceased as also the age of the dependent mother. Thus, compensation awarded in the sum of Rs.3,84,000/- with funeral expenses of Rs.2,000/- and for loss of estate at Rs.2,500/- total sum was awarded of Rs.3,85,000/-only. The amount arrived at by the learned member of the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case was just reasonable and proper and not excessive. Considering that Second Schedule with reference to section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was pre-structured formula prescribed in the year 1994, the present day situation growing inflation, due to rising prices, etc cannot be ignored. Hence, no interference is required in the impugned judgment and award. 6. Appeal is therefore dismissed. 7. The amount deposited in this Court towards compensation, pending hearing of this appeal be transferred to the Tribunal which will not be allowed to be withdrawn till expiry of two weeks. 8. Appeal is dismissed accordingly.