ORDER 1. The appeal, at the instance of claimant-widow, is directed for enhancement of the amount awarded by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal. Ranchi, in Compensation Case No. 155/93 on account of death of her husband Late Binod Bihari Singh in a motor vehicle accident. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 29.5.93 Late Binod Bihari Singh and Davendra Kumar Giri were going to Dakra from Ranchi in a Jeep bearing Registration No. BR-13-9137 which was being driven by Davendra Kumar Giri. When they reached near village Murgu a Dumper bearing Registration No. BR-14C-0248 which was coming from Lohardaga side drive rashly and negligently in a high speed dashed the jeep due to which both the persons received multiple injuries and consequently succumbed to injuries. 3. The claimants case is that her husband Late Binod Bihari Singh was a Senior employee in C.C.L. and was a Senior Executive Engineer and was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 6,725/- and as such she claimed a sum of Rs. 80.00.000/- by way of compensation for the death of her husband who was aged only 40 years, 4. Owner of the Dumper, namely, M/s. G.S. Atwal and Co. (Engg.) Pvt. Ltd.. appeared and filed their statement denying and disputing the allegation of negligence in driving the Dumper. The case of this respondent was that because of the rash and negligent driving of the Jeep, accident took place. The respondent C.C.L. being the owner of the Jeep also field written statement alleging that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Dumper. Respondent-Insrurer of the Jeep also alleged rash and negligent driving of the Dumper. It is worth to mention here that the Dumper was not insured with any of the Insurance Company. 5. The Tribunal after considering the evidence recorded a finding that the deceased, Binod Bihari Singh died in a motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving by both the drivers of Jeep and the Dumper. However, the Tribunal held that since no documentary evidence with regard to the income of the deceased Binod Bihari Singh has been adduced by the claimant the notional .income of the deceased was worked out at Rs. 15.000 per annum and on the basis of the notional income the Tribunal assessed compensation of Rs. However, the Tribunal held that since no documentary evidence with regard to the income of the deceased Binod Bihari Singh has been adduced by the claimant the notional .income of the deceased was worked out at Rs. 15.000 per annum and on the basis of the notional income the Tribunal assessed compensation of Rs. 1.39.750/- and held that both the owner of the Dumper and the insurer of the Jeep are liable to pay half and half. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-claimant contended that the claimant in her evidence very categorically stated about the employment of her husband and also the monthly salary which he was getting at the time of accident. Learned counsel submitted that Tribunal was in error in holding that no evidence was produced to show that the deceaseds monthly income was Rs. 6.725/-. 7. Mr. S.N. Lal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the owner of the Dumper, namely, M/s. G.S. Atwal and Co. (Engg.) Pvt. Ltd. has made his argument on the merit of the appeal and also on the cross-objection filed by owner of the Dumper. The cross-objection has been filed against the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles. 8. In the claim application, it has been categorically stated by the appellant-claimant in column-4 of the application that the deceased was a Senior Executive Engineer (Excavation) at Peeparwal Project of C.C.L. Against column-4 of the application she has mentioned the gross monthly income of the deceased of Rs. 6.725/-. In the written statement, filed by the respondents-owner of the vehicle, there is no denial at all with regard to the employment of the deceased or the monthly income which he was earning from the employer -C.C.L. On the contrary, in the written statement filed by the respondents, the employer, the monthly income of the deceased has admitted. 9. The claimant who is the widow in her evidence has categorically stated that her husband was employed in C.C.L. and was Senior Executive Engineer (Excavation). She further deposed that monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 6.725/-. Even in cross-examination the C.C.L or the owner of the Dumper did not ask any question regarding monthly earning of the deceased. It is the elementary principal of law of evidence that facts admitted need not be proved. She further deposed that monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 6.725/-. Even in cross-examination the C.C.L or the owner of the Dumper did not ask any question regarding monthly earning of the deceased. It is the elementary principal of law of evidence that facts admitted need not be proved. As noticed above, the monthly earning of the deceased has father been admitted by all the respondents which was supported by the oral evidence adduced by the widow. In our view, the Tribunal has committed gross error of law in holding that the monthly salary of the deceased has not been proved. Consequently, the Tribunal has further committed serious illegality in taking the notional income of the deceased for the purpose of calculating the actual compensation. 10. As noticed above, from the monthly income of Rs. 6.725/- if we deduct one third of the said amount, then monthly dependency at least come to Rs. 4500/-. The annual dependency, therefore, will be of Rs. 54.000/-. What will be reasonable multiplier for the purpose of assessing the concession, will be discussed herein after. 11. Before assessing the actual compensation, we shall deal with the cross- objection filed by the respondent-owner of the Dumper challenging the finding that the accident occurred due to sole negligence in driving the jeep. 12. Admittedly. Jeep is a lighter vehicle whereas the Dumper is a very heavy vehicle. The accident took place by reason of head-on-collusion of both the vehicles. We are, therefore, of the opinion, that the principle of res ipso, loquitor will apply and the negligence of both the vehicles cannot be ruled out in absence of strong evidence from the side of the owner of the Dumper that only driver of the Jeep was negligent in driving the jeep. The very fact that there was head on collusion between the two vehicles and the accident occurred at the middle of the road, it can be safely inferred that driver of both the vehicles were negligent. Consequently, the owner and insurer of both the vehicles are equally liable for payment of compensation. 13. There are catena of decisions to the effect that when there is a head-on collusion between the heavier vehicle and lighter vehicle, the liability shall be fastened on both the vehicles. Some of the decisions are worth to be referred hereinafter. 14. In a case reported in 1983 TAC 189. 13. There are catena of decisions to the effect that when there is a head-on collusion between the heavier vehicle and lighter vehicle, the liability shall be fastened on both the vehicles. Some of the decisions are worth to be referred hereinafter. 14. In a case reported in 1983 TAC 189. the fact was that there was an accident by Truck with a Car. It was held that the duty of the driver of the heavier vehicle should be more than that of the lighter vehicle and, therefore, the heavier vehicle is liable to pay more compensation. Similarly, in the case reported in (1986) 1 TAC 115, there was head-on collusion between the Taxi and the Bus. It was held that Bus is liable to pay 75 per cent while the light vehicle was liable to pay 25 per cent of the total compensation. Similarly, in the case reported in 1985 ACJ 859 there was a collusion between the Car and the Jeep coming from opposite direction, and consequently the accident was caused. It was held that the accident took place due to the rash driving of the Tanker. In all such cases the consistent view is that both the owner and insurer of the heavier vehicle as well as the lighter vehicle should be held equality responsible for payment of compensation. 15. So far the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is stated in the written statement filed by the C.C.L. that after the death of Binod Bihari Singh, his widow got Provident Fund, Gratuity and other amount and also got some amount by way of death compensation. It was also admitted that after the death of her husband she got compassionate appointment. 16. Taking into consideration all these facts, although, in the instant case 10 years of purchase was taken for assessing the compensation but in view of the aforesaid fact when 10 years of purchase is applied and multiplied by annual dependency i.e. Ks. 54.000, then the maximum amount of compensation to which the appellant would be entitled comes to Rs. 5,40,000/-. 17. For the aforesaid reason, we allow the appeal and enhance the compensation amount from Rs. 1,46,752/- to Rs. 5.40,000/- The amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9 per cent from the date of the award passed by the Tribunal. 54.000, then the maximum amount of compensation to which the appellant would be entitled comes to Rs. 5,40,000/-. 17. For the aforesaid reason, we allow the appeal and enhance the compensation amount from Rs. 1,46,752/- to Rs. 5.40,000/- The amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9 per cent from the date of the award passed by the Tribunal. Both the owner of the Dumper, respondent No. 1 and the insurer of the Jeep are directed to pay the aforesaid amount in equal share along with interest.