JUDGMENT : Chet Ram Thakur, J. 1. These are two appeals directed against the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Simla, whereby it made an award of Rs. 30,600.00 in favour of the claimants consequent to the death of Norala Singh in a road accident on the Nalagarh-Kalka Road at about 4.45 P.M. on 19th June, 1970. The amount of award was to be recovered from M/s New India Assurance Company Limited, Simla. 2. The Respondents in that application filed a F.A.O. No. 18 of 1972 against the award given by the Claims Tribunal, whereas the claimants filed F.A.O. No. 21 of 1972 for enhancement of the amount. 3. The brief facts of the case are that Norata Singh was sitting on the right side of the cemented wall of a Pulli on the Nalagarh-Kalka Road at about 4.45 P.M. on 19th June, 1970, when a truck bearing registration No. HIM-9150 driven by Saran Singh Respondent came from Nalagarh side at a very high speed. The driver could not control the truck which went on his wrong side of the road and struck against the cemented Pulli on which Norata Singh was sitting. As a result of that collision the truck turned turtle and Norata Singh received fatal injuries. His widow, minor sons and daughters and mother filed a claim petition against the owner of the truck, the driver and the insurance company for an award of rupees two lacs on that account. 3. The petition was opposed by the Respondents. It was pleaded by them that Saran Singh, who was employed by Respondent No. 1 as their driver was not actually driving the truck at the time of the accident. Saran Singh had parked the truck opposite to the office of the Surrindra Transport Company at Kalka in the morning of 19th June, 1970. From there it was stolen by one Puran, who drove the same on the Kalka-Nalagarh Road and caused the accident resulting in the death of Norata Singh. Puran was neither a licensed driver nor he had any authority on behalf of the owners to drive the truck. As such they denied their liability for the accident or to pay compensation to the Petitioners. It was also averred that the amount of compensation claimed by the Petitioners was too excessive. The insurance company also denied its liability for the claim of the Petitioners. 4. As such they denied their liability for the accident or to pay compensation to the Petitioners. It was also averred that the amount of compensation claimed by the Petitioners was too excessive. The insurance company also denied its liability for the claim of the Petitioners. 4. The Claims Tribunal found that it was Saran Singh Respondent and not Puran, who was driving the truck at the time of the accident and that the accident had occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver and consequently the Claims Tribunal held the Respondents liable. The Claims Tribunal further found that Norata Singh was earning Rs. 150/- per month and that he had been spending Rs. 50/- on himself and had been contributing the balance of Rs. 100/- for his family. Norata Singh at the time of the accident was found to be of 40 years of age and the expectation of his life was also held to be 70 years. Therefore, the Claims Tribunal multiplied Rs. 1200/- by 30 and the total compensation amounted to Rs. 36,000/-. But since this amount was to be made available to the dependents in lump sum, therefore, the Claims Tribunal deducted Rs. 5,400/- at the rate of 15 per cent and the net amount payable to the dependents was found to be Rs. 30,00/- which was apportioned between the claimants. 5. The age of the deceased at the time of the accident was admittedly 40 years and there is also no dispute that the deceased was making a monthly income of Rs. 150/- by agricultural labour. He had taken the Government land on lease and he also owned a small area of land which he used to cultivate personally. Out of his monthly income of Rs. 150/- he contributed Rs. 100/- towards the joint kitchen of the family and he spent Rs. 50/- on his own person. The only dispute is with regard to the quantum. According to the learned Counsel for the Respondents-Appellants this amount assessed on account of compensation is on the higher side. According to him if an amount of Rs. 12,000/- is put in a fixed deposit in any bank the same would fetch a monthly income of Rs. 100/- by way of interest at the rate of Rs. 10/- per cent per annum. According to him if an amount of Rs. 12,000/- is put in a fixed deposit in any bank the same would fetch a monthly income of Rs. 100/- by way of interest at the rate of Rs. 10/- per cent per annum. He further submits that there is a scheme floated by the Indian Overseas Bank whereunder even 17 per cent interest can be paid. Hence the defendants can earn more than Rs. 100/- per month which the deceased had been contributing towards the joint kitchen of the family. He has also supported his argument by Surjit Singh and Anr. v. The Cooperative General Insurance Society Ltd., The Mall Ambala Cantt and Ors. 1974 P.L.R. 358 and Parmmder Singh v. Mukatsar Janta Co-operative Transport Society Ltd. and Anr. 1973 A.C.J. 166 to show that if the amount awarded is deposited in any bank, it would be possible for the dependents to earn as much money by way of interest as the deceased had been contributing to the dependents. 6. There is no doubt that if the amount of Rs. 12,000/- as is argued by the learned Counsel for the Appellants is paid to the dependents and the same is deposited in a bank and the rate of interest is Rs. 10 per cent per month then they can get a monthly income of Rs. 100/- which amount the deceased had actually been contributing to the dependents. But it cannot be said that the interest payable by the banks is really 10 per cent as has been sought to be argued by the learned Counsel for the Appellants. However he has tried to support his sub-mission that the rate of interest in case of deposit above 5 years is 10 per cent from a news article published in the issue of The Hindustan Times of September 19, 1974. It has been stated there in that the Indian Overseas Bank offers the highest ever interest rates on term deposits and the rate of 10 per cent is shown to be payable in case of deposit above 5 years. But I may state that the presumption of truth u/s 81 of the Indian Evidence Act can be attached to the contents appearing in the newspaper. The newspaper even if it is admissible is not a proof of its contents. But I may state that the presumption of truth u/s 81 of the Indian Evidence Act can be attached to the contents appearing in the newspaper. The newspaper even if it is admissible is not a proof of its contents. In these circumstances I do not place reliance on the contents of this newspaper with regard to the rates of interest given therein. The bank rate as prevalent is 6 per cent per mensem and, therefore, I think that in these circumstances if the dependents are paid Rs. 20,000/- then at the rate of 6 per cent the annual income that can be fetched by way of interest would be Rs. 1,200/- and in that case the dependents can get an amount of Rs. 100/- per month which they have lost because of the accidental death of Norata Singh. Consequently, on that basis I would accept this appeal of the Respondents-Appellants to the extent that an amount of Rs, 20,000/- would be the just compensation in the case of all his dependents and the same would fetch an annual income of Rs. 1,200/- as interest by way of fixed deposit above 5 years. 7. In so far as the F.A.O. No. 21 of 1972 is concerned it has been argued by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that this amount of compensation is quite low and that the same deserves to be enhanced and he has invited my attention to the evidence on the basis of which he prays for enhancement. I have gone through the evidence and I find that the evidence is not at all very material for arriving at the income of the Appellants exceeding the one that has been already determined by the Claims Tribunal. The deceased admittedly was a farm labourer. He had taken the land on lease from the Government and he personally owned a very small area of land which was not an economically viable holding. From the land taken on lease as also from his own land he could not make more income than Rs. 150/- per month. From the living conditions of the Appellants as is evident from the record it would appear that they are not affluent. They are living in a broken mud hut. If the deceased had been contributing about Rs. 300/- or Rs. 400/- per month as is stated by Mrs. 150/- per month. From the living conditions of the Appellants as is evident from the record it would appear that they are not affluent. They are living in a broken mud hut. If the deceased had been contributing about Rs. 300/- or Rs. 400/- per month as is stated by Mrs. Jagir Kaur then I fail to understand why they could not improve their status and repair the broken mud hut which was their only abode. Further from the statement of Mrs. Jagir Kaur herself it is evident that they could very hardly meet their expenses within the amount that used to be contributed by the deceased towards the joint kitchen of the family. It can, therefore, be inferred that the amount which was being made available by the deceased towards the joint kitchen of the family was not a very large amount so as to fully cater to their needs. Consequently, 1 am of the view that the learned Claims Tribunal correctly fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 150/- out of which after having deducted his personal expenses of Rs. 50/- he could hardly save and contributed Rs. 100/- towards the joint kitchen of the family of which the present Appellants, who were dependents on the deceased have been deprived of. 8. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no force in this appeal and 1 think that the amount of Rs. 20,000/- as already held would be a just compensation to which the Appellants are entitled and accordingly this appeal fails whereas the appeal No. 18 of 1972 succeeds to the extent that the award made by the Claims Tribunal is reduced to Rs. 20,000/-. Since I have awarded this amount on the assumption that this amount would be invested in a long term safe deposits in a bank and the dependents would get interest on this amount besides the amount itself, therefore, I do not think it necessary to apportion the same between the claimants. The entire amount shall be paid to Mrs. Jagir Kaur on her furnishing security to the extent of the claim of the minors to ensure that they get this monthly income of Rs. 100 by way of deposit in the bank till the minors attain their majority. No orders as to costs.