The court affirmed the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal and reduced the rate of interest from 15% to 12% per annum.

A.K.Sinha, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and award dated 29.8.1992 and 21.9.1992 respectively passed by the 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Compensation Case No. 102 of 1986 whereby the learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 1,95,000 as compensation to the claimants-respondents with interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum on the entire amount from 20.6.1986 till the date of the realisation. The Tribunal also ordered that if the amount is not paid within two months from the date of the order, the claimants shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum.

2. The relevant facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that on 2.2.1986, the deceased Ramcharitra Singh was going to Itki from Ranchi on TVS 50 bearing the registration No. BPV 7079 and near Bajra Bridge bus bearing registration No. BHH 8283 which was coming from the opposite direction being driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the TVS and ran over the deceased, namely, Ramcharitra Singh, who died instantaneously. It was claimed that Ramcharitra Singh was the only bread-earner and the whole family consisting of his widow and children have been put to financial hardship and so, claimants claimed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 (rupees two lakh) as compensation with interest at the rate of 18 per cent from the date of institution till the realisation of the amount besides further sum of Rs. 10,000 (rupees ten thousand only) on account of funeral expenses. A police case was also instituted and it was the case of claimants that at the time of the death, the deceased was aged about 30 years and was doing the job of a mechanic and thereby he was earning a sum of Rs. 1,000 per month.

3. The learned Tribunal framed the following issues in the case:

(i) Whether there was accident involving death of Ramcharitra Singh arising out of the use of motor vehicles bearing registration Nos. BHH 8283 (bus) and BPV 7079 (TVS 50)?

(ii) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle?

(iii) Whether the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 are liable to pay compensation or O.P. Nos. 3 and 4 are also liable to pay compensation?

(iv) Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, if so, the quantum thereof?

(v) Whether the claim for compensation is maintainable?

The learned Tribunal decided issue Nos. (i) and (ii) in favour of the claimants and while deciding issue No. (iv) the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled to get a sum of Rs. 1,95,000 as compensation. Accordingly, the remaining two issues were decided in favour of the claimants.

4. A cross-objection was filed on behalf of the owner of the vehicle, namely, Md. Azam, but in the course of hearing of this appeal, the same was not pressed.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company vehemently argued that the learned Tribunal has committed error in adopting 30 as multiplier and the multiplier cannot exceed 18, in view of the decision in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation V/s. Trilok Chandra 1996 ACJ 831 (SC). The learned counsel then assailed the award in respect of the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal which is 15 per cent and in case of non-payment within two months 18 per cent per annum. It was the submission of the learned counsel that in various decisions of the Supreme Court 12 per cent interest has been considered to be reasonable and for this, he has relied upon the decision in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Usha 1996 ACJ 838 (Kerala).

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants has submitted that the appeal filed by the insurance company is not maintainable, inasmuch as the insurance company has not obtained the leave u/s. 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon an unre-ported decision of this court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co,