Judgment Loknath Prasad, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4.3.94 passed by Shri S.K. Chaudhary, 1st Additional Claim Tribunal, Hazaribagh in Claim Case No. 155/90 thereby and thereunder the claim case preferred by claimant i.e. respondent No. 1 was allowed and it was ordered that claimant will be entitled to realise Rs. 1,52,760.00 from the appellant-Insurance Company, and further the same amount for Chandra Bhushan Prasad Sinha, the owner of the car who is respondent No. 3 here. 2. The fact in short for the purpose of this appeal is that claimants son Md. Mobin was the driver of car bearing No. DIA 7093 and on 27.5.90 he was driving aforesaid car and at about 4 P.M. when he reached near Romi Bunglow within Barhi P.S. then a tracker bearing No. BPM 4745 belonging to the respondent No. 2, Jagni was Pandey, came with a great speed and dashed against the car due to negligence on the part of the driver due to that Mobin was seriously injured and he was taken to hospital where he died immediately. The claimant i.e. respondent No. 1 the father of the deceased filed the aforesaid claim case which was allowed in the manner indicated above. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with this order the appellant-Insurance Company preferred this appeal mainly for the reason that excessive amount of compensation has been awarded. 3. So far as the accident is concerned involving two Motor vehicles i.e. a car bearing No. DIA 7093 which was being driven by the deceased and a tracker bearing No. BPM 4745 on 27.5.90 is not denied. Admittedly the tracker was fully insured in favour of the appellant-Insurance Company. The factum of accident is not being challenged by the appellant so this fact is well proved that when the car driver by the deceased and the tracker coming from opposite side then collided and in that accident the deceased-driver died. In that view of the matter, the claimant is entitled for the compensation. The factum of accident is not being challenged by the appellant so this fact is well proved that when the car driver by the deceased and the tracker coming from opposite side then collided and in that accident the deceased-driver died. In that view of the matter, the claimant is entitled for the compensation. Learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the car and the tracker both was being driven rashly and negligently and there was also contributory negligence of the car driver i.e. the deceased and so came to the conclusion that half portion of the compensation amount is to be borne by the owner of the car i.e. respondent No. 3 and half portion by appellant-Insurance Company because tracker belonging to the respondent No. 2 was fully insured. 4. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned the Tribunal specifically recorded a finding that the income of the deceased being a driver was Rs. 1,000.00 p.m. only but this income was multiplied by 38 times which is apparently wrong in view of the decision of the Apex Court reported in 1996 ACJ Vol. 2 page 831 because now the total dependency of the family should not be multiplied more than 18 times. Keeping in view the principle enuciated by the Apex Court if monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 1,000.00 and if 1/3rd of the amount is to be deducted for his personal expenses then the total dependancy of the family comes to Rs. 650.00 p.m. and if this amount is multiplied by 12 the annual dependancy comes to Rs. 7,800.00 . As the deceased died leaving behind only one claimant i.e. his father who is aged about 55 years or at the time of accident so naturally it may be accepted that the deceased may get some portion form his son upto the age of 70 years or so. If that is so the annual dependancy of Rs. 7,800.00 if multiplied by 15 then it comes to Rs. 1,17,000.00 and in ground figure Rs. 1,20,000.00 . Accordingly, I am of opinion that the Tribunal erred in granting compensation on higher side and the claimant is entitled to realise. Rs. 1,20,000.00 in all for the death of his son who was working as driver. 5. 7,800.00 if multiplied by 15 then it comes to Rs. 1,17,000.00 and in ground figure Rs. 1,20,000.00 . Accordingly, I am of opinion that the Tribunal erred in granting compensation on higher side and the claimant is entitled to realise. Rs. 1,20,000.00 in all for the death of his son who was working as driver. 5. The Tribunal also recorded a specific finding that the tracker and the car which was driven by the deceased himself, both were coming with a great speed and there was contributory negligence on the part of both which resulted in the accident. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal fixed responsibility of care owner and the tracker owner both but as the tracker was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company and as the car owner i.e. respondent No. 3 had not claimed that the vehicle was insured and also not contested the claim case, so it was ordered that half portion of the compensation amount is to be paid by the owner of the car and half portion by the Insurance Company. This finding of the Tribunal had not been challenged neither by the appellant-Insurance Company nor by the respondent as they had not filed any cross-objection. 6. In that view of the matter, the total compensation the claimant-respondent No. 1 is entitled to the tune of Rs. 1,20,000.00 . So the appellant-Insurance Company the insurer of tracker bearing No. BPM 4745 will pay half of the amount i.e. Rs. 60,000.00 less the amount already paid together with interest from the date of application and on balance amount as per order of the Tribunal @ 18% p.a. is to be paid. Similarly balance amount of Rs. 60,000.00 is to be paid by the owner of the car bearing No. DIA 7093 belonging to the respondent No. 3, Chandra Bhushan Prasad Sinha, together with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. 7. In the result this appeal is allowed in part but without any costs.