Pradip Mohanty, J.
1. This appeal is one under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order dated 19.9.1996 passed by the 3rd Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Balasore, in M.A.C.T. Case No. 38/106 (c) of 1996/94.
2. The facts in brief to the case are that the respondents-petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 filed the above case before the Tribunal claiming that on 9.1.1994 at about 11.45. A.M. their son (the deceased) died in a motor accident. The deceased was a +2 Science student and was earning Rs. 500/- per month from tuition. On account of his death caused by the offending vehicle, the petitioners- respondents sustained mental shock and agony and lost hope of dependency on the deceased.
The opposite parties-respondents contested the case by denying the allegations of the petitioners-respondents.
On appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal allowed the petition and directed opposite party No. 2 the New India Assurance Company Ltd., to pay compensation of Rs. 76,800/-with interest at the rate of 12% per annum till realisation of the award amount after deducting the compensation of Rs. 25,000/-already paid to the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party No. 2 has come up with this appeal for setting aside the same.
3. In course of hearing of the appeal, Miss Mira Ghose, counsel for the appellant, submitted that the award of the learned Tribunal is not in conformity with law and the award is exorbitant.
Mr. O. M. Ghose, counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the award of the learned Tribunal.
4. The only point for determination in this appeal is as to whether the quantum of award is just and proper.
In order to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the award amount is just and proper, this Court perused the evidence., both oral and documentary on record and the impugned award of the learned Tribunal. On going through the evidence of P.W. 1, Gayadhara Poi, the father of the deceased, this Court finds that on the date of occurrence the driver of the offending vehicle ORB-2520 in which the deceased was travelling, drove the bus rashly and negligently as a result of which the deceased was thrown out of the bus and died at the spot. He also stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 500/- per month from tuition. P.W. 2 is a man of another village who supports the assertion of the P.W. 1, the petitioner-respondent No. 1. In the cross-examination of the witnesses, except for some minor discrepancies, nothing has been brought out so as to disbelieve their testimonies. Moreover the appellant has not examined any witness on its side nor has produced any document so as to discard the evidence of the witnesses.
5. Taking the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation of Rs. 76,800/- to the respondents-claimants for their mental shock and agony and for loss of life of the deceased who was the only feeding member to the claimants. The Insurance Company having failed to satisfy regarding infirmity in the impugned award, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. However, the award amount is payable with interest at the rate of 9% and not at the rate of 12% per annum as directed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the impugned order is affirmed, subject to modification or the rate of interest.
In the result, the Misc. Appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.