S.K. Dubey, J.
1. The M.P. State Road Transport Corporation has preferred this appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act'), against an award dated 12-1-1984, passed by Shri Ravi Verma, Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No. 54/82.
2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are: that the respondents-claimants No. 1 to 5 filed an application under Section 110-A of the Act against the appellant and the respondent No. 6, the driver of the motor vehicle, claiming compensation of Rs. 1 lac for the death of Ibrahim, the husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondents No. 2 to 5 On the fateful day i.e. 13-2-1982 at about 7.00 p.m. Ibrahim was standing and urinating on the left side of the road on Sanwer Road, Indore near the Tiraha of Baroli. The vehicle Bus No. CPM 8695, which was being driven by the respondent No. 6 rashly and negligently, was coming from Sanwer to Indore, dashed on the wrong side against the deceased Ibrahim, as a result of which Ibrahim succumbed to the injuries and died instantaneously on the spot. Ibrahim was aged 40 years, who was a milk vendor and was earning about Rs. 300/- per month. The respondent-claimants alleged that in their family the span of life is 90 years At the trial the claimants led evidence that the deceased was earning Rs. 400/- per month, by selling of milk.
3. The tribunal after recording of evidence held that the driver was rash and negligent; hence the appellant as a master of the vehicle is vicariously liable to compensate the claimants for the death of Ibrahim. The tribunal also assessed the monthly dependency @ Rs. 300/- per month and thus after calculating the annual dependency, awarded Rs. 50,000/- only as compensation and interest thereon @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the application till realisation.
4. Shri M.L. Dhupar, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that this is the rarest of rare cases where the appellant-Corporation could get an opportunity to challenge the award because in the application under Section 110-A of the Act, the monthly income of the deceased in para 3 has been stated as Rs. 300/- per month and the widow has also admitted in her statement that the deceased was earning about Rs. 400/- per month. Except this, there is no evidence. The evidence led is contrary to the pleadings and the tribunal, without deducting the own expenses of the deceased, has considered the monthly dependency of Rs. 300/- per month. The tribunal ought to have given a deduction of the own expenses of the deceased.
5. Shri M.A. Khan, learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the award is not excessive hence in appeal the appellate Court will not interfere. Moreover, the deceased was having his wife and four children, he could not have afforded to spend money on himself. Further in the statement, it has come that the deceased used to earn about Rs. 400/- per month, therefore, in the pleadings even if it is written that the deceased was earning Rs. 300/- per month, this will not have any effect as the pleadings in claim cases are to be liberally construed. Further the widow is an illeterate lady. Besides this, when the evidence was recorded, PW Amnabi, the widow, PW. 6 Bapu and PW-7 Nabi Baksh stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 400/- per month. No objection was raised about this evidence. There is no cross-examination on the point that the deceased was not earning Rs. 400/- per month but Rs. 300/- per month. In the modern trend inawarding the compensation, the tribunal should not be rigid by mathematical formula, but it should award the compensation, which is just, proper and fair in the circumstances of the case. The tribunal has got power to grant the relief on the facts, which have been brought before the tribunal by the parties.
6. After hearing the learned Counsel, we are of the opinion that this appeal has no merit. Hence, the argument of Shri Dhupar, learned Counsel for the appellant, that the tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the case, ought to have given a deduction of own expenses of the deceased from the monthly income of Rs. 300/-, cannot be accepted. In our opinion, the tribunal, in relation to the monthly dependency and quantum of damages, after going through the evidence, material on record and after taking all the relevant facts into consideration, has arrived at the annual dependency @ Rs. 3600/- per year and awarded Rs. 50,000/- only, while looking to the age of the deceased if a multiplier of 15 is adopted, then the amount of compensation would not have been less than Rs. 54,000/-. Moreover, the tribunal has also not awarded interest @ 12% per annum, which is against the mandate of the Apex Court. Minimum interest in compensation cases now a days has to be awarded @ 12% per annum from the date of the application. See Nardnva v. Kamat and Anr. v. Alfredo Antonio Doe Martins and Ors. 1985 ACJ, 397, SC and Jagbir singh and Ors. v. General Manager, Punjab Roadways and Ors. 1987 ACJ 15. As the claimants have not preferred any appeal against the award nor have filed any cross-objections, hence we are not inclined to enhance the compensation or the interest. Thus, we are satisfied, in the facts of the case, that the award is not excessive so as to warrant interference in appeal.
7. In the result, the appeal has no merit and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. 500/-, if already certified.