Judgment 1. The above named Insurance Company has preferred this appeal on the quantum being fixed by the 1st Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Sasaram in Claim Case No. 43 of 1995 vide judgment and award dated 29.8.1998. A compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,20,416/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 was awarded. 2. Balwant Singh @ Balbant Singh predecessor of the claimant died by a vehicular accident at G.T Road. At the time of the death the deceased was having a vehicle repairing garage. The deceased was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. At the time of death he was 50 years of age. The claim of compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 lacs, had been made. The claim case was contested and it was held by the tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the offending motor cycle which was insured with the appellant Insurance Company at the relevant time, and after assessing compensation by application of multiplier method the aforementioned compensation has been awarded in favour of the claimants-respondents. 3. Although various other points were taken in the appeal but the learned Advocate appearing for and on behalf of the Insurance Company has traversed his argum ents only on the point of quantum being fixed on the wrong principle of law. His submission is that the way the multiplier has been applied is against all norms and the same is required to be reassessed. 4. Regarding the maintainability of such challenge with regard to the fixation of quantum the learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the respondents have urged that restrictions imposed by section 96 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the Insurance Company is debarred from challenging the award on merit including the quantum of compensation. He relied on a decision of single Bench of this Court as reported in 1996 (2) PLJR 850. It is true that there is restriction imposed by the Act itself with regard to the points of challenge available to the Insurance Company. He relied on a decision of single Bench of this Court as reported in 1996 (2) PLJR 850. It is true that there is restriction imposed by the Act itself with regard to the points of challenge available to the Insurance Company. If the quantum has been arrived at on the basis of the evidence on record then the same cannot be challenged by the Insurance Company but then if in fixing of the quantum the Tribunal has committed error on the principle itself then definitely the Insurance Company comes out from the restrictions to challenge the same before the appellate Court. Here in the present case the appellant is not challenging the fixation /determination of the income of the deceased or the monthly dependency arrived at by the learned Tribunal. The only grievance of the Insurance Company is that the learned Tribunal has applied a wrong multiplier in arriving at the quantum of compensation and did not adhere to the principle laid down by the Apex Court in that score. Thus, I find that the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted in view of the position and circumstances in the present case. When there is error on the principle on which the quantum has been assessed then such wrong principle can be challenged by the Insurance Company. 5. Admittedly the deceased died at the age of 50 years and as per Schedule of the new Motor Vehicles Act the maximum multiplier can be used as 18 and in the present case 16 has been applied as a multiplier. The other principle is that while assessing the quantum of compensation the Apex Court has held that such compensation should not be in the form of windfall profits or gains in favour of the claimant rather that must be commensurate to the amounts of dependency which they were receiving during the life time of the deceased. A principle was enunciated to that effect that the amount of compensation should be such that if the same is kept either in fixed deposit scheme of the Nationalised Bank or with the other Financial Institutions the interest accrues or fetches must be commensurate to the monthly dependency of the claimant. Such principle has been discussed and applied by relying on the Apex Court Judgment in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Such principle has been discussed and applied by relying on the Apex Court Judgment in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. M/s. Kanak Pal [ 1996 (1) BLJR 473 ] and the said judgment of this Bench has ready been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court as reported in 1996 (2) PLJR 1242 and after discussing those two judgments and also of the Apex Court judgment a single Bench of this Court reported the same principle in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Mostt. Mina Devi as reported in 2000 (2) PLJR 820 . Keeping the same principle view of the assessment made in the present case with regard to the determination of compensation is found to be excessive and exorbitant. Admittedly deceased Balwant Singh was aged 50 years at the time of accidental death. His monthly income was assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 1,700/- per month and on deduction of personal expenses the monthly dependency of the claimant has been assessed at Rs. 1148/- per month and then by using a multiplier of 16 the amount of compensation has been assessed at Rs. 2,20,416/-. If this amount is kept in F.D.R. it definitely fetches about 2,200/- per month which is definitely much more than what dependency is there of the claimant. Let us now calculate the compensation on the principle as mentioned above. Let us take the monthly dependency at Rs. 1,200/- by considering the scope of increase in the monthly dependency by the go of the day. Then the yearly dependency comes to Rs. 14,400/-. If the multiplier of 11 is applied the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,58,400/- making it a round figure it comes to Rs. 1,58,000/-. If thIs amount is kept in Nationalised Bank under fixed deposit scheme then it will fetch about Rs. 1500 per month and I think the same would be just and proper considering more increase also in the income of the deceased from business due to the economic condition of the country. Giving much laxity to the amount of dependency assessed by the Tribunal and considering the beneficial scheme of the Act itself, in my opinion, the amount assessed above by this Court is proper and just and the amount of compensation assessed by the Tribunal is highly excessive and exorbitant which requires interference by this Court. 6. Giving much laxity to the amount of dependency assessed by the Tribunal and considering the beneficial scheme of the Act itself, in my opinion, the amount assessed above by this Court is proper and just and the amount of compensation assessed by the Tribunal is highly excessive and exorbitant which requires interference by this Court. 6. In the result the appeal is partly allowed. The amount of compensation assessed by the Tribunal is hereby lessened to Rs. 1,58,000/- and keeping the other condition such as levying of interest and deduction of interim amount as ordered by the Tribunal. 7. The appeal is thus, partly allowed as mentioned above. No order as to costs.