H.R. Panwar, J.
1. These four appeals arise out of common judgment and award dated 30.12.1992 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur (for short, 'the Tribunal' hereinafter) in MAC Cases Nos. 48, 63, 74 and 114 of 1986. whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 75,000/-, Rs. 53,000/- Rs. 33,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- respectively in favour of the claimants. However, being dissatisfied by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant-appellants (for short, 'the claimants' hereinafter) have filed the aforesaid appeals seeking enhancement of the compensation.
2. Briefly stated the facts, to the extent they are relevant and necessary for the decision of these appeals, are that on 31.12.1985 at about 3 P.M., deceased Rajkumar and Smt. Basanti as well as injured appellants Munnalal and Pawan Kumar were travelling in the vehicle Tempo Trax bearing No. TMG 1860 from Pipar City to Jodhpur. The said Tempo Trax was being driven by Mohan Singh. When it reached near Dantiwada, a bus bearing No. RNP 796 coming from the opposite direction which was driven by respondent No. 3 Gani Mohammed rashly, negligently and with great speed, suddenly went out of control and hit the Tempo Trax. The said bus was owned by the respondent Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'the Corporation' hereinafter). Due to this accident, the driver of the Tempo Trax Mohan Singh, occupants Rajkumar aged 19 years, Smt. Basanti aged 55 years, Munna Lal and Pawan Kumar sustained serious injuries, Mohan Singh, Rajkumar and Smt. Basanti succumbed to the injuries instantaneously. The legal representatives of deceased Mohan Singh, Rajkumar and Smt. Basanti besides injured Munnalal and Pawan Kumar field claim applications before the Tribunal for compensation. On appreciation of the evidence produced before the Tribunal, it held that the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver respondent No. 3 Gani Mohammed. The finding of the Tribunal as to the negligence of the driver of the bus has not been challenged and has, thus, become final. The only point for consideration in these appeals is as to inadequacy of the amounts of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
3. In S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 37/1996 arising out of MAC Case No. 48/86, the appellants herein are parents of the deceased Raj Kumar. In claim petition, it was averred that deceased Rajkumar was 19 years of age at the relevant time and was a student of B.E. (Electronics) in Banglore University. He was a brilliant student which fact has been established by the evidence of PW-1 Jhoomar Lal. The claimants have produced on record Ex. 2, copy of marks sheet issued by the higher secondary course certificate of the Authority of the Government of Tamil Nadu and Ex. 3, a copy of marks sheet issued by the Banglore University. From Ex. 3 it is established that deceased Rajkumar passed 1st Year, B.E. (Annual Scheme Examination) in November, 1985. Thus it is established that at the relevant time, deceased Rajkumar was a student of Bachelor of Engineering in the Bangalore University. The marks obtained by him at the examination reveal that he secured good-second division marks at the 1st Year B.E. examination. Ex. 2 marks-sheet issued by the authority of Government of Tamil Nadu proves the date of birth of the deceased who was, thus, 19 years old at the time of the accident. In this view of the matter, the claimants succeeded in satisfactorily establishing the academic career as well as the age of the deceased before the learned Tribunal.
4. At the time of the accident, of course, the deceased was a non-earning member being a student. But, on completion of his education, looking to his academic progress, he would obviously have been engaged as an Engineer with future prospects. Therefore, the deceased was a prospective earning member of the family. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 75,000/- as compensation to the claimants. It is settled law that in appeal the quantum of compensation is interfered with if the compensation awarded is too low or too excessive, as the case may be. Obviously, for a young person of 19 years of age, taking into account his educational career and bright future prospects, a sum of Rs. 75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is too low. In L.Rs. of Haji Zainullah Khan v. Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad : (1994)5SCC667 while awarding compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- for the death of 20 years old student of 1st Year B.Sc., the Apex Court observed that the compensation asked for by the claimants is very much on the lower side. The Second Schedule to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum in the case of non-earning victims of road accidents. Even if this amount is taken to be the basis for compensation and then an appropriate multiplier is applied, considering the fact that the deceased was a brilliant student having future prospects, in my considered opinion, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- would be just and proper compensation.
5. The Tribunal has not awarded interest from the date of application. It is settled law that the claim being allowed, the claimants are entitled to get interest in addition to the amount of compensation from the date of presenting the claim application. Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides that where any Claims Tribunal allows a claim for compensation made under the Act, such Tribunal may direct that in addition to the amount of compensation, simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such date, not earlier than the date of making the claim, as it may specify in this behalf. In Kaushuma Begum v. United India Insurance Company, reported in : [2001]1SCR8 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that earlier 12 per cent simple interest was considered to be proper but in view of the fact that the Reserve Bank of India has lowered down the rate of interest to 9 per cent for a fixed deposit for one year, interest should be awarded on the amount of compensation at the rate of 9 per cent instead of 12 per cent per annum. Considering this fact interest is allowed at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of presenting the claim application. Besides, the claimants are also held entitled to receive Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 2,500/- for loss of estate.
6. In S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 440/1993, the claimant is son of deceased Smt. Basanti who was 55 years of age at the time of the accident. Ex. 1 post mortem report is on record showing the age of the victim to be above 55 years. The claimant also proved her age to be 55 years. PW-3 Gautam Chand started that his mother was doing money-lending at her home and by this she used to earn Rs. 1000/- 1500/- per month. The claimant himself is a major, being aged 34 years, having stable business. I have gone through the statement of PW-3 Gautam Chand. In this statement, he has nowhere stated that he was dependent upon his mother and, rightly so, because claimant Gautam Chand himself is 34 years old and is dependent upon his own income and cannot be expected to be dependent on the deceased. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 3,000/- as lump sum interest. In my considered opinion, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for loss of income cannot be said to be too low warranting interference. However, the claimant is entitled to Rs. 10,000/- for loss of love and affection and Rs. 5,000/- for loss of estate. Thus the total compensation works out to Rs. 65,000/-. The Tribunal allowed a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as consolidated interest which cannot be justified in view of the provisions of Section 171 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as discussed hereinabove.
7. In S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 439/93, injured claimant Munna Lal sustained six injuries in the said accident, including fracture of lateral end of clavicle bone and fracture of 2nd, 3rd and 5th ribs of the right side. He also received injuries on the right ear and over the right eye-brow. He was admitted in the hospital for 6-7 days and, thereafter remained under treatment for about 3-4 months and thus could not attend his watch-repairing shop during the period of treatment. Thus he was deprived of his income during the period of treatment. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 30,000/- lump sum compensation under various heads and further awarded Rs. 3,000/- as consolidated interest.
8. I have carefully gone through the injury report Ex. 9, discharge ticket of the M.G. Hospital, Jodhpur Ex. 8 X-ray plates Ex. 1 to 4 as well as statement of PW-4 claimant Munnalal. At the relevant time, the claimant a young person of 28 years of age suffered numerous injuries on his person in the said accident which resulted in fracture of clavicle bone as also 2nd, 3rd and 5th ribs of the right side. He was forced to incur expenses on his treatment. The claimant suffered physical pain and mental agony due to the said accident. Keeping in view the nature of injuries and duration of treatment, in my considered opinion, a sum of Rs. 45,000/- would be just and proper compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant. It will take care of loss of income, expenses incurred on treatment and attendant and for the physical pain and suffering. The Tribunal has awarded consolidated interest amounting to Rs. 3,000/- which cannot be said to be in accordance with law. The claimant is entitled to get interest on the amount of compensation from the date of application till realisation at the rate of 9 per cent per annum.
9. In S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 443/03, the injured claimant Pawan Kumar suffered fracture of lower shaft of tibia and fibula which is evidence from the X-ray plates Ex. 1, 2, 3 and 4. The claimant has also produced on record the discharge ticket issued by the M.G. Hospital, Jodhpur. He was admitted in the hospital twice i.e. on 31.12.1985 and, thereafter again on 4.2.1986. On the relevant date, he was 19 years of age and a student of Higher Secondary. Before the Tribunal, the claimant stated on oath that due to the fracture of the lower shaft of tibia and fibula in the right leg, he has been suffering from permanent limping. Due to the injuries sustained by him, he remained hospitalised and under plaster which remained for couple of months and consequently he could not appear at the examination during the session 1985-1986. The Tribunal, in all, awarded in his favour compensation of Rs. 18,000/-. This amount is obviously on the lower side and inadequate in view of the fact that claimant suffered fractures of tibia and fibula bones in his leg which resulted in permanent limping as also the fact that the injuries have adversely affected the educational career of the claimant as the claimant could not appear at the examination as he was hospitalised and remained plastered for a number of months. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 18,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as consolidated interest. In my considered opinion, the ends of justice would meet if the compensation is enhanced from Rs. 18,000/- to Rs. 35,000/-. The consolidated interest awarded by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and, therefore, instead of consolidated interest, the claimant is entitled to get interest on the amount of compensation at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion and observations, these appeals are allowed and compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the respective claimants in:
(1) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 37/1986 is enhanced from Rs. 75,000/- to Rs. 2,04,500/-, (2) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 440/1993 is enhanced from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 65,000/-; (3) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 439/1993 is enhanced from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 45,000/-; and (4) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 443/1993 is enhanced from Rs. 18,000/- to Rs. 35,000/-. The respective claimants in all the aforesaid appeals shall be entitled to receive interest on the amount of compensation at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation. Any amount, if already paid by the respondents shall be adjusted against the amount payable. No order as to costs.