JUDGMENT M. M. DAS, J. : This appeal has been preferred by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. against the judgment dated 6.4.2001 passed in Misc. (Accdt.) Case No.194 of 1999 by the District Judge-cum-First M.A.C.T. Sambalpur. 2. The claim application filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988 by the defendants of the deceased Panchanan Meher before the First M.A.C.T. Sambalpur was registered as Misc.(Accdt.) Case No.194 of 1999. The case of the claimants was that on 6.7.1999, the deceased Panchanan along with Mahesh Singh Pujari (deceased in Misc.(Accdt.) Case No.207 of 1999), Banchha¬nidhi Meher (deceased in Misc (Accdt.) Case No.230 of 1999) and S. Arumugam (deceased in Misc. (Accdt.) Case No.239 of 1999) came to Sambalpur form Brajarajnagar in a Trekker bearing registration number OR-15-C-3818 to attend a marriage party. While they were returning form Sambalpur at about 3 A.M. in night, near Dhuben¬chapal a Truck bearing registration number OR-15-C-1495 came form the opposite direction in a high speed being driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Trekker. As a consequence of the said accident, the above named deceased persons were thrown out of the Trekker and died at the spot, except the de¬ceased Banchhanidhi Meher, who being seriously injured, was admitted as an indoor patient to Jharsuguda hospital, where he succumbed to the injuries, five days after the accident. All the above claim cases where disposed of by a common judgment dated 6.1.2001 by the Claims Tribunal awarding different amounts of compensation to the claimants in their respective cases. 3. Mr. A. K. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurer submitted that in Misc. (Accdt.) Case No. 194 of 1999 out of which this appeal arises, pursuant to issue of notice, the owner of the Truck appeared and filed a written statement, inter alia, pleading that the accident occurred due to composite negligence of both the vehicles and as such, the claim application is bad for non-joinder of necessary party, i.e., the owner and the insurer of the Trekker. He further contended that the present appellant also filed its written statement denying its liability. The sole point raised in this appeal by Mr. He further contended that the present appellant also filed its written statement denying its liability. The sole point raised in this appeal by Mr. Rath is that, the Tribunal below has committed an error of law in neither framing an issue with regard to the maintainabili¬ty of the claim application on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party nor arrived at any finding with regard to the question of composite negligence on the part of the drivers of the Truck and the and Trekker. 4. Perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the Tribu¬nal below after having noted the pleadings of the owner of the Truck, to the effect that the Trekker in which the deceased per¬sons were travelling was equally responsible for the accident and after noting that no witness was examined form the side of the owner of the Truck or form the side of the appellant and further relying upon the statement of witness and the charge sheet filed by the police only against the driver of the Truck, came to a clear finding that the Truck was at fault and it dashed against the Trekker for which the accident occurred. After going through the materials available, this Court is of the view that the above finding of the Tribunal requires no interference. 5. In the meantime, in Misc. Appeal No.580 of 2001 which was preferred against the award passed in Misc. (Accdt.) Case No.239 of 1999 relating to the same accident, this Court by its order dated 4.8.2003 while disposing of the said appeal, con¬firmed the finding of the Tribunal below that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Truck which resulted in death of four occupants of the Trekker. This Court further found that the Truck was validly insured on the date of accident by the appellant-company. As a matter of fact, with regard to the liability/contribution of the Trekker for the accident, this Court categorically found that the Trekker is to a joint tortfeasor in the accident. On the above finding, the award impugned in the said appeal with regard to the liability of the appellant was confirmed. However, the compensation awarded, in the facts of the case, was reassessed by this Court. 6. In Misc. On the above finding, the award impugned in the said appeal with regard to the liability of the appellant was confirmed. However, the compensation awarded, in the facts of the case, was reassessed by this Court. 6. In Misc. Appeal No.583 of 2001 which arose out of the common judgment which is impugned in this appeal, this Court by its order dated 21.6.2004 has confirmed the impugned award with respect to Misc. (Accdt.) Case No.230 of 1999, though reassessing the compensation payable. 7. In view of the above conclusion of this Court with regard to the accident for which different claim applications were filed, it is not necessary under law to deal with the same point raised by the appellant in this appeal with regard to the question as to whether the driver of the Trekker was also a joint tortfeasor. I, therefore, repel the contention raised by Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the appellant in this regard. 8. With regard to the quantum of compensation, Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the calculation arrived at by the Tribunal below is fallacious and illegal. He further submitted that the Tribunal below has gone wrong in apply¬ing multiplier of 18 instead of 17 and has also wrongly calculat¬ed the monthly contribution of the deceased to be Rs.1,555/- instead of Rs.1500/-. 9. Learned counsel for the claimants-respondents, however, submitted that it is not open for the insurer to challenge the quantum of the award in an appeal as no application under Section 170 of the M.V. Act was filed by the appellant before the learned Tribunal for leave to take wider defence, inasmuch as, the owner of the offending Truck himself appeared and filed a written statement in the case. It is no doubt true that the insurer, under law, cannot challenge the quantum of compensation awarded, but nevertheless if the method of calculation is incorrect, it would be open to the insurer to bring the said fact to the notice of the appellate Court. I find that the contention of Mr. Rath with regard to calculation of compensation is correct. As the monthly income of the deceased was accepted to be Rs.2000/-, the contribution made to the family should be taken as Rs.1500/- per month, i.e., 2/3rd of the monthly income. The multiplier should also be taken as 17 instead of 18. I find that the contention of Mr. Rath with regard to calculation of compensation is correct. As the monthly income of the deceased was accepted to be Rs.2000/-, the contribution made to the family should be taken as Rs.1500/- per month, i.e., 2/3rd of the monthly income. The multiplier should also be taken as 17 instead of 18. Thus, the compensation to which the claimants should be entitled to, would come to (Rs.1500/-x 12 x 17) Rs.3,06,000/-. However, as submitted by the learned counsel for the claimants, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal below being found to be low, i.e. 6 percent per annum, the same should be increased to 9 per cent per annum payable form the date of filing of this appeal, i.e., form 7.8.2001. Accordingly, the appellant is directed to deposit Rs.3,06,000/- along with the interest accrued thereon at the rate of 9% per annum to be calculated form 7.8.2001 till the date of payment, before the Tribunal below. On such deposit being made and since respondents 3 to 5 appear to have attained majority in the meantime, out of the said amount, respondent No.1-Kailash Meher would be entitled to Rs.75,000/-, respondent No.2-Sadananda Meher would be entitled to Rs.51,000/- and respondents 3 to 5, i.e., Govinda Meher, Satyaban Meher and Rathi Meher would be entitled to Rs.60,000/- each. The interest portion calculated as per the direction above would also be payable to each of the claimants on their respective share of compensation. Fifty per cent of the total amount (i.e. compensation + interest) receiva¬ble by each of the claimants-respondents, would be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized Bank for a period of five years and the rest fifty per cent would be paid to them in cash. After depositing the entire amount of compensation with interest as directed above, before the Tribunal below, the appellant will produce a certificate in support of such deposit before this Court to claim refund of the statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- along with the interest accrued thereon, if any. 10. This appeal is, therefore, allowed in part, but in the circumstances without any costs. Appeal allowed in part.