JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Nishant Mehrotra, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The appellant is an insurance company. It has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 4.5.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bijnor in M.A.C.P. No.193 of 2011 between Arvind Kumar (Claimant) and Ramgopal @ Rampal and another (Opposite parties) whereby a compensation of Rs.5,01,380/- with interest @ 6% p.a. has been awarded. 3. The tribunal had taken the loss of income of the injured to be Rs.18,000/-for the purposes of determining compensation and by applying the multiplier of 18 worked out the compensation on the basis of disability to be Rs.3,24,000/-. 4. The only submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the injured at the time of accident was aged about 27 years and, therefore, the multiplier of 17 ought to have been applied in place of 18. 5. In case the multiplier of 17 is applied the amount would stand reduced only by Rs.18,000/-. This is hardly of any consequence to the appellant. 6. The amount of Rs.18,000/-which may be reduced if the multiplier of 17 is applied in place of 18 may not be insignificant in so far as claimants are concerned but it is a petty amount for the insurance company, the appellant herein. The appellant may have even spent more than the above amount in the filing and prosecution of this appeal. 7. It is settled law that courts of justice generally do not take trifling and immaterial matters into account in view of the maxim de minimis non curat lex which means that the law does not concern itself with trifles. 8. There may be some injuries of so little consideration that in law no action lies for them. It is in such cases of small injuries of immaterial nature that the above maxim has been frequently applied. A familiar instance of application of the above maxim are cases of assessment with more rigorous application in financial matters. 9. It is important to refer to Section 102 C.P.C. which prohibits filing of second appeal in certain cases where the subject matter of the original suit is for recovery of money not exceeding Rs.25,000/-. The said provision is supposed to be based upon the above legal maxim. 10. 9. It is important to refer to Section 102 C.P.C. which prohibits filing of second appeal in certain cases where the subject matter of the original suit is for recovery of money not exceeding Rs.25,000/-. The said provision is supposed to be based upon the above legal maxim. 10. In view of the triviality of the amount involved on account of change of multiplier from 18 to 17 that it was better for the appellant not to have even preferred this appeal. 11. In our opinion, it is not an appropriate matter where the appeal be brought to this Court. Accordingly, we decline to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. 12. In the end, a note of advise is issued to all insurance companies to desist from filing appeals in matters where the incidence of financial burden is insignificant and leave it upon them to come out with a clear policy wherein their officers are instructed not to prefer appeals in matters involving financial liability up to a particular limit say Rs.1 Lakh depending upon the financial position of each of the insurance company. This will not only save them from unnecessary litigation expenses on cases with negligible or no substantive gain and at the same time would save the Courts with the burden of cases of trivial nature. 13. The statutory amount deposited before this Court may be remitted to the tribunal for necessary adjustment. 14. The appeal is dismissed.