JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this appeal, the appellants has challenged the judgment and order dated 11.4.1997 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/VIIth Additional District Judge, Azamgarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in M.A.C.P. No. 13 of 1995 (Jagdamba Singh and another Vs. Shobhnath and others) awarding a sum of Rs.11,22,000/-as compensation to the claimants/respondents with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition.

2. Heard earned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record and judgment.

3. The brief facts of the case are that claimants-appellants filed a Motor Accident Claim Petition before the Tribunal for claiming the compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the death of Kamlesh Kumar Singh in a road accident with the averments that on 13.10.1994 at about 8:25 AM, Kamlesh Kumar Singh-deceased was going on motorcycle bearing no. Uttar Pradesh 50 6160 from Azamgarh to Sarfadeenpur Industrial Estate, when he reached Narauli Taxi Stand, a bus bearing no. Uttar Pradesh 65 C 5015 came from behind the motorcycle of the deceased, which was being driven very rashly and negligently by its driver. The bus driver lost the control of the bus and hit the motorcycle. In this accident, deceased sustained very serious injuries and died on the spot.

4. The appeal and the cross objection raised only one issue of quantum. The twin issues raised by the Insurance Company are that driver of the bus was not negligent and in alternative even if this Court holds he was negligent. The deceased was a contributor to the incident having been taken place and the deceased was either solely negligent or he was driving his motorcycle on the wrong side and the evidence of the driver has not been believed by the learned Tribunal rather it has been brushed aside, therefore, the judgment is bad.

5. It is further submitted that income of the deceased has been wrongly considered to be Rs.9,000/-per month, the deduction of 1/3rd is bad as deceased was a bachelor and only father and mother were dependent on him.

6. As against this, Mr. S.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the claimants submits that while going through the site plan, evidence on record and the judgment of the learned Tribunal, the issue of negligence has been rightly decided in favour of the claimants. .

7. It is next submitted that income of Rs.9,000/-per month is considered on the basis that deceased was the partner in the firm and, therefore, the same was based on income tax returns. Rather the learned Tribunal did not add any amount under the head of future loss of income. Further granting multiplier on the basis of the age of the parents and not on the basis of the age of the deceased. The Tribunal had granted only Rs.20,000/-under the head of non pecuniary damages.

8. As far as the rate of interest is concerned, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant has raised cross objection and has contended that the interest at the rate of 12% awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side and is bad in the eye of law. It is submitted that the interest should be as per the repo rate. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that there can be no addition of amount as the accident is of the year 1994 when the Rule was not in vogue and the judgment of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093 was not available.

9. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence has attained finality as neither the Insurance Company nor the owner of the vehicle has disputed the same even in oral submissions. The driver of the said vehicle was having valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident is also a decided fact. The vehicle being insured and there being no breach of policy condition is a finding, which has attained finality. The only issue to be decided is the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

10. The term negligence means fail