The court emphasized the importance of upholding the Tribunal's findings based on evidence and previous judgments regarding the rate of interest.

S.S.Sudhalkar, J.

1. The insurance company is challenging the award of the Tribunal. The claim petition was filed by the widow and daughter of deceased Ajit Singh who died in the motor accident.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that there was a collusion between the respondent-claimant and the driver and owner of the vehicle. According to the learned counsel, the vehicle number mentioned in the F.I.R. is 640 while the vehicle number insured with the appellant is 040. Only because of the vehicle number being differently recorded in the F.I.R. the evidence of the respondent-claimant cannot be discarded. The learned counsel for the appellant states that the witnesses have deposed regarding the number of the vehicle being 040 and not 640. Even then it has to be seen that the F.I.R. has been lodged on the first information and that has to be by one person only and not by more than one. In such a case, it will not be proper to throw out the evidence only because of the wrong number mentioned in the F.I.R. Moreover, vehicle involved in the accident is a Matador. We questioned the learned counsel for the appellant as to whether any evidence has been placed on record to show that vehicle number 640 is also a Matador. He replied that no such evidence is led. The Tribunal after considering the evidence, held that the vehicle involved is Matador bearing registration No. 040 and we do not find any infirmity in the finding of the Tribunal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the income of the deceased has not been assessed properly. According to him, the basis of assessing the income should be the pay scale of Rs. 950-1,800. The income assessed by the Tribunal is Rs. 3,000 per month. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the copies of depositions before the Tribunal which he has shown to us. He has relied on the deposition of PW 2 who was senior assistant, P.H.C., Sahnewal, Ludhiana. He has stated that the scale of the deceased was Rs. 950-1,800 but he has also stated that the salary paid to the deceased was about Rs. 3,500 to Rs. 4,000 per month. When the basic pay scale was of Rs. 950-1,800 the finding of the Tribunal that he was earning Rs. 3,000 per month cannot be said to be erroneous. We do not find any infirmity in the finding arrived at by the Tribunal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant insurance company has argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. He has relied on the case of Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2001 ACJ 428 (SC). It has been observed by their Lordships as under:

"(23) Now, we have to fix up the rate of interest. Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the Tribunal to 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 may be specified in this behalf. Earlier, 12 per cent was found to be the reasonable rate of simple interest. With a change in economy and the policy of the Reserve Bank of India the interest rate has been lowered. The nationalised banks are now granting interest at the rate of 9 per cent on fixed deposits for one year. We, therefore, direct that the compensation amount fixed herein before shall bear interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of the claim made by the appellants. The amount of Rs. 50,000 paid by the insurance company under section 140 shall be deducted from the principal amount as on the date of its payment and interest shall be recalculated on the balance amount of the principal sum from such date."

5. However, it can be seen that in the said case, no compensation was awarded by the Tribunal, holding that the accident had not taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the claimant moved the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal with a very sh