Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act by the above-named opposite party No. 2-appellant against the judgment and award dated 5.7.1994 passed by the 1st Additional Claims Tribunal, Hazaribagh, in Claim Case No. 73 of 1991 granting compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,84,952.00 together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum to be paid within 30 days from the date of award; in default, the rate of interest had been increased to 18% per annum from the date of filing Of the claim case up to the date of realisation. The whole amount of compensation has been asked to be paid by the appellant-Insurance Company as the offending truck was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. 2. The facts of the case run in a very narrow compass: Sashi Bhushan Prasad Singh was the husband of Claimant No. 1 Smt. Sunayana Devi and the father of the minor son and daughter who have also joined as claimants in the guardianship of their mother, claimant No. 1. The deceased was travelling in a Trekker bearing registration No. BR 21-T-4515 along with his wife claimant No. 1 on the date of accident, i.e. on 8.2.1991 and at the place of occurrence, truck No. BHM 5149 owned by opposite party No. 1 being insured with opposite party No. 2 (the appellant in this appeal) came from towards Hazaribagh side in highly excessive and uncontrollable speed. Due to careless and negligent driving, it dashed against the Trekker, as a result of which, the husband of the claimant died. It was further stated that the Trekker in which the deceased and claimant No. 1 were traveling was in a dead slow speed and it attempted to save it from the truck in question and also took side and gone to the left kacha flank but, even then, the negligent truck driver dashed against the trekker causing accident. The deceased was taken to Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh, from where he was removed to Rajendra Medical College Hospital, Ranchi, but ultimately died there on 13.2.1991. The owner of the trekker was also made party but the insurer of the trekker was not made party and practically the owner of the trekker filed written statement but did not contest the case. The deceased was taken to Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh, from where he was removed to Rajendra Medical College Hospital, Ranchi, but ultimately died there on 13.2.1991. The owner of the trekker was also made party but the insurer of the trekker was not made party and practically the owner of the trekker filed written statement but did not contest the case. The owner of the truck had filed joint written statement with the Insurance Company (opposite party No. 2) and it was contended that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the trekker and the truck was not in fault. The Insurance Company also stated that the trekker was being driven by a person who had no proper driving licence and the same was with the truck also. 3. From the side of the claimant, several witnesses have been examined and documents have also been produced. Soon after the accident, the Khalasi of the truck filed a First Information Report to the effect that the accident was caused due to rash and neligent driving of the trekker. The claimant No. 1 had also filed another complaint petitioner before the Chief Judicial Magistrate which was marked Ext. 8 and therein it was stated that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. In support of that complaint petition, the complainant was examined before the Chief Judicial Magistrate also and she has supported about the negligence of the truck alone due to which accident was caused. She has also deposed in the present claim case supporting her claim that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. The learned Tribunal after considering the evidence on record came to the finding that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver and, as such, the truck in question was held to be the offending vehicle and not the trekker. 4. On this decision being arrived at by the Tribunal, Mr. The learned Tribunal after considering the evidence on record came to the finding that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver and, as such, the truck in question was held to be the offending vehicle and not the trekker. 4. On this decision being arrived at by the Tribunal, Mr. Shamim Akhtar, learned Counsel appearing for and on behalf of the appellant, has submitted that as the accident was due to head-on collision between the two vehicles then the principles of res-ipsa-loquitur would come into play and then both the vehicles must be held to be negligent and, as such, contributory negligence being there, sole responsibility or liability cannot be imposed on the truck vis-a-vis the appellant-Insurance Company for the purpose of payment of compensation. 5. Mr. G. Mustafa, Counsel appearing for and on behalf of the claimants has strongly opposed such submission by submitting that the Insurance Company has, got no scope to challenge such factual aspect as per the provisions laid under Sec. 149 of the Act. The owner had contested and on factual matters when the owner is there and when no permission had been given to the Insurance Company to contest the factum of accident also, there is no scope of Insurance Company to raise such factual aspect in this appeal when the owner has not joined with the Insurance Company in the appeal. I find much force in the submission of Mr. Mustafa on this point, Moreover, from the evidence adduced in the case, it appears that it was not a total head-on-collision. It has come in evidence that the trekker, by seeing the negligent driving of the truck, had sided into Kacha portion of the road to avoid the accident but even then also the truck had dashed on it. So on this factum of accident and the decision arrived at by the learned Tribunal holding the truck to be the offending vehicle cannot be interfered with by this Court nor there can be any scope of the appellant to raise the point of factum of accident in the appellate Court. 6. The next point has been raised by Mr. Akhtar to the effect that the Tribunal has committed error in determining the income of the deceased and, as such, on wrong calculation, huge amount has been imposed on the Insurance Company. On this point also, Mr. 6. The next point has been raised by Mr. Akhtar to the effect that the Tribunal has committed error in determining the income of the deceased and, as such, on wrong calculation, huge amount has been imposed on the Insurance Company. On this point also, Mr. Mustafa has opposed to the effect that on the quantum of compensation also, the Insurance Company has no right to challenge by referring to Sec. 149 of the Act. I do not find any force in such submission of Mr. Mustafa. When the whole of the amount of compensation had been fastened with the appellant-Insurance Company then it has got every right to challenge the wrong calculation or wrong method being applied by the Tribunal in calculating the quantum of compensation. 7. It is true that the deceased was aged about 45 years and in the claim petition, it has been averred that he was getting monthly emolument of Rs. 3,978.00 but during the course of trial, a certificate from the employer had been produced wherein it could be found that he was getting monthly emolument of Rs. 4,413.00 per month which includes House Rent and other allowance also. The learned Tribunal had determined the monthly income at Rs. 4,413.00 relying on the documentary evidence and then 1/3rd has been deducted towards personal expenses and by applying the multiplier of 12, the amount of compensation had been assessed. 8. Mr. Akhtars submission is that the house rent allowance ought not to have been construed towards the monthly emoluments and even if that had been construed also, the multiplier of 12 was too high for the purpose of calculation of compensation. Relying on the decision of the apex Court in the case of The General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivendrumv. Mrs. Susamma Thomas, and others, AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1631, wherein it was held that the true method of calculation/assessment of compensation would be to the extent that the assessed amount should be such that if the same is deposited under fixed term deposit in a nationalised Bank then the amount of interest coming from it should be at par with the income of the deceased per month. It was further been submitted by Mr. It was further been submitted by Mr. Akhtar that on compassionate ground, the claimant No. 1, i.e., the widow of the deceased had also been employed and she is also getting a good salary for the purpose of survival and in that way the amount of compensation assessed is too high. 9. Although the employment of claimant No. 1 is a subsequent event, but according to Mr. Akhtar, the same should also be construed in the present case, as the appeal is nothing but a continuation of the claim case. The employment of claimant No. 1 has not been denied. Although such sort of employment are not being considered much for the purpose of assessment of compensation, but in the present case, I find that even if the monthly income of the deceased is determined at Rs, 4,500.00 per month after considering his scope of promotion and higher pay-scale in future, then also by construing the formula as considered by the apex Court, the amount of compensation with proper multiplier being used should not be more than Rs. 4,50,000.00 (Rupees four lacs fifty thousand) as the same amount if deposited in a nationalized Bank in fixed term deposit, the same would fetch Rs. 4,500.00 per month. 10. Thus, without going into much more complication of calculation, I hereby hold that the amount of compensation should be Rs. 4,50,000.00 in the nature and circumstances of the case. The interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of claim is found to be proper and just and hence upheld. Regarding enhanced interest at the rate of 18% per annum, I hold that such imposition of enhanced interest is not illegal but that should be from the expiry date as fixed by the Tribunal up to the date of realisation. 11. With such modification in the amount of award and the starting date of enhanced interest, in default, as mentioned above, the appeal is dismissed.