The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of negligence in a motor vehicle accident, assessment of compensation for permanent disability, and the appropriate rate of interest to be awarded.

Satya Prakash Pathak, J.-In the present appeal filed under Section 173, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation has prayed for setting aside the Judgment and award dated 13.07.1994 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neem Ka Thana and dismiss the claim petition of respondents No. 1 and 2.

2. Brief facts of the case as unfolded in the claim petition are to the effect that on 09.09.1991 at about 12.45 when the claimant Vaibhav Kumar was returning to his house from school, near bus-stand Neem Ka Thana a bus of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation having Registration No. RNE 6599 driven rashly and negligently struck against him and crushed his left leg, which resulted in permanent disability to the applicant and there has been depreciation of 70% in his physical and mental ability. It was further averred in the petition that he lost one year of his study and due to the accident and was suffering regular pain and his body vibrates. It was also averred that his future has become suspicious and future prospects have been ruined as he will not be able to compete in all those competitions where physical fitness is must and will not be able to get a high post. It was also stated that he was facing problem in doing his day to day work and would be unable to manage the ancestral property due to the accident and will have to suffer whole of his life. He claimed a sum of Rs. 13,00,000/-under different heads.

3. The appellants, filed their reply to the claim petition before the learned Tribunal and stated that the claimant Vaibhav Kumar due to his own fault as on account of heavy school bag had fallen on the road. They denied any negligence or ill intention on the part of the driver and denied their responsibility for the accident. The driver of the bus also filed his reply separately in which he even denied the fact of accident.

4. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings of parties framed issues for deciding the matter and vide its award dated 13.07.1994 allowed compensation of Rs. 5,75,000/-in favour of claimant-respondents with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of filing of the claim petition.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have preferred this appeal for setting aside the award passed by the learned Tribunal.

.6. It is the case of the appellants that in the claim petition it was alleged that the accident occurred on 09.09.1991 but the first information report about the accident was lodged after three months and injury report was prepared after five months of the alleged accident which disclosed the duration of injuries to be only 7 days old. It is further case of the appellants that the claimants did not examine the doctor who immediately examined the injuries of Vaibhav Kumar after accident or the doctors who gave medical treatment to him and the claimant did not produce bed-head tickets and other proofs of medical treatment taken. The grounds of challenge to the award taken by the appellants are being enumerated hereunder:-

.(i) That claimant Vaibhav Kumar did not met with an accident by the bus of Corporation.

.(ii) The FIR was lodged with enormous delay which period is sufficient for deliberation and concoction and the claimants after accident did not tell anyone that Vaibhav met with an accident by the bus of the Corporation and no passenger of the bus was examined.

.(iii) Claimant Vaibhav Kumar fell down on the road due to heavy bag and met with an accident with some other bus but the Tribunal wrongly interpreted it and linked it with the bus of the Corporation.

.(iv) Amount awarded under various heads of income, giving special diet, medical facilities, permanent disability, physical pain and sufferings are arbitrary.

.(v) Rate of interest awarded is highly excessive and has been fixed without looking into the provisions of Section 35, CPC.

.7. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the claimant-respondents supported the award passed by learned T