JUDGMENT : H.W. Dhabe, J. 1. These are the three first appeals arising out of the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nagpur (for short the 'Claims Tribunal') which can be conveniently disposed of by this common judgment. Reference, however, to the parties in this judgment is as in the First Appeal No. 37 of 1980. Briefly the facts are that the deceased Nutankumar was the son of the respondent No. 1. The deceased Nutankumar was studying in the Industrial Training Institute, Nagpur, during the relevant time. On the eventful day, i.e., 17.8.1977 at about 7.30 a.m. in the morning the deceased Nutankumar along with 4 or 5 other boys was going to the Industrial Training Institute on their bicycles by Wardha Road, Nagpur. When they reached the square where Kripalani Road meets the Wardha Road, one of the cyclists by name Suresh Kanhere, who according to the claimants was ahead of them, took a turn towards the right and had crossed the square to go to the Institute. The second boy, who took a turn towards the right side to reach the Institute, was the deceased Nutankumar and the third boy to do so was Deepak, AW 5. According to the claimants, the boys were going to the Institute one after the other, whereas according to the appellant Corporation, they were going together in a horizontal line. 2. It is the case of the claimants that the Corporation truck bearing No. MHG 2271 driven by Suresh Chamke, NAW 1, was coming from behind and it dashed against the deceased Nutankumar as a result of which he received multiple fractures, as disclosed in his post-mortem examination performed by Dr. More, AW 2, particularly to his head and had died instantaneously. According to the claimants, the aforesaid truck was coming at a high speed and even after having seen that the boys were crossing the road, the driver did not stop the truck to avoid the accident. The deceased Nutankumar was hit by the front portion of the truck and the dash was so severe that the headlight of the truck was broken. It was thus the case of the claimants that the fatal accident of Nutankumar had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the Corporation truck by its driver Suresh, NAW 1. 3. The deceased Nutankumar was hit by the front portion of the truck and the dash was so severe that the headlight of the truck was broken. It was thus the case of the claimants that the fatal accident of Nutankumar had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the Corporation truck by its driver Suresh, NAW 1. 3. According to the claimants, the deceased Nutankumar was 19 years old on the date of the accident, i.e., 17.8.1977 and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, i.e., the father and the mother of the deceased Nutankumar, were, respectively, 50 years and 48 years of age at that time. It is claimed that the deceased Nutankumar would have passed his examination from the Industrial Training Institute in the year 1978 as he was a brilliant student. After completing his course in technical education, he would have secured a job easily in any factory and would have received a pay of Rs. 650/- per month on an average till the time of his retirement from service. Since he was unmarried at the time of his death, he would have required Rs. 250/- per month for his expenses and would have thus provided his parents with Rs. 400/- for their expenses. Calculating the claim for compensation on account of the pecuniary benefits which would have been received from their deceased son, the respondent-claimants claimed that they are entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,68,000/- because of fatal accident to their son. They also claimed an amount of Rs. 15,000/- as general damages for suffering mental agonies and thus according to them, they were entitled to total compensation of Rs. 1,83,000/-. It is on this basis that the respondent-claimants, i.e., the father, the mother, the brother and the sisters of the deceased Nutankumar filed an application on 2.2.1978 before the Claims Tribunal for recovery of compensation from the appellant and the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 jointly and severally. 4. The appellant and the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 resisted the claim of the respondent-claimants on various grounds. The appellant and the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 denied that there was any negligent or rash driving on the part of the respondent No. 7. 6 and 7 jointly and severally. 4. The appellant and the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 resisted the claim of the respondent-claimants on various grounds. The appellant and the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 denied that there was any negligent or rash driving on the part of the respondent No. 7. At any rate, it was submitted that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased Nutan kumar because although he knew that the truck was behind him and although the respondent No. 7 had blown the horn, still he had turned towards the right. Further according to them, the accident took place because Deepak, a co-student of the Industrial Training Institute and the third cyclist, had also turned towards the right and had collided with the deceased Nutankumar's bicycle when the truck was near to them. Therefore, although the respondent No. 7 had swerved the truck towards the right, applied the brakes and blown the horn, Nutankumar was lying on the road near the rear side portion of the truck due to his collision with the aforesaid third cyclist. By the written statements the appellant and the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 also denied the calculation as well as the claim for compensation made by the claimants. 5. The learned Claims Tribunal framed the necessary issues on the pleadings of the parties. The parties led evidence before the learned Claims Tribunal. The learned Claims Tribunal on the basis of the evidence on record held that the fatal accident to Nutankumar took place due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 7 who was driving the truck belonging to the appellant Corporation. It further held that for one year after completing the course the deceased Nutankumar would not have received any salary but merely a stipend which was enough for his own expenses. It also held that from age of 21 years, the deceased Nutankumar who would have then obtained the technical qualifications, would have easily got a job in the factory as deposed to by Suresh Kanhere, AW 3, who after completion of his course from the Industrial Training Institute, Nagpur was appointed as a machinist in Bharat Forge Company, Pune. He deposed that a machinist would have got at that time the rate of Rs. 22.40 per day, i.e., on an average Rs. 600/- per month. He deposed that a machinist would have got at that time the rate of Rs. 22.40 per day, i.e., on an average Rs. 600/- per month. Since no contrary evidence was led on behalf of the respondents, the learned Claims Tribunal calculated the compensation on the basis of the above salary which the deceased Nutankumar might have received in his employment after completing his training. The learned Claims Tribunal further held that the deceased Nutankumar would have required for his personal expenses an amount of Rs. 300/- per month. 6. The respondent No. 1 having stated in his evidence that the deceased Nutankumar would have been married at the age of 28 or 30, the learned Claims Tribunal calculated the claim for compensation for seven years at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month which came to Rs. 25,200/-. He held that after his marriage the expenses would be incurred by him upon his family also. However, during the course of service he would have also got increments in his wages. Accordingly, the learned Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the benefit which the claimants would have received after 7 years would be Rs. 250/-per month particularly when the father of Nutankumar who was less qualified and was earning less was contributing Rs. 150/- per month to his parents. The learned Claims Tribunal had held that the span of life of an average Indian can be taken as 65 years and, therefore, the mother of the deceased, who was 48 years of age, would have continued to take the benefit for 17 years at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month, i.e., Rs. 3,000/- per year. It thus came to the conclusion that the total benefit which the claimants would have received for 17 years was Rs. 51,000/- after adding to it the benefit of Rs. 25,200/- which was roughly determined at Rs. 25,000/-. The total benefit, according to the learned Claims Tribunal, was thus Rs. 76,000/-. However, taking into consideration the factors of uncertainty of life and payment in lump sum etc. the learned Claims Tribunal estimated the compensation payable to the claimants on account of the pecuniary loss caused to them due to the death of the deceased Nutankumar at Rs. 65,000/-. The learned Claims Tribunal also awarded Rs. 3,000/- as general damages for mental agonies suffered by the claimants due to sudden death of Nutankumar. the learned Claims Tribunal estimated the compensation payable to the claimants on account of the pecuniary loss caused to them due to the death of the deceased Nutankumar at Rs. 65,000/-. The learned Claims Tribunal also awarded Rs. 3,000/- as general damages for mental agonies suffered by the claimants due to sudden death of Nutankumar. Thus, it fixed the total compensation payable to the claimants at Rs. 68,000/-. It, then, directed by its award that the appellant and the respondent No. 7 should pay an amount of Rs. 68,000/- and the proportionate costs to the claimants out of which the liability of the respondent No. 6, insurance company, was fixed at Rs. 50,000/- with the proportionate costs. 7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award of the learned Claims Tribunal, the appellant Corporation has preferred the First Appeal No. 37 of 1980 in this court, whereas the respondent No. 6, i.e., the insurance company has preferred the First Appeal No. 101 of 1980. The claimants also felt dissatisfied with the award of the learned Claims Tribunal. They have, therefore, preferred First Appeal No. 107 of 1980 in this court. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant Corporation has primarily urged two contentions before us. His first contention is that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased Nutankumar and, therefore, the said factor ought to have been taken into consideration by the learned Claims Tribunal. His second contention is that the compensation is not properly calculated by the learned Claims Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant Corporation as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 also raised the same contentions. As regards the appeal preferred by the claimants, the learned counsel appearing for them has urged that the learned Claims Tribunal was in error in not granting interest upon the claim awarded by it, as provided in Section 110-CC of the Motor Vehicles Act. He has also urged that there should not have been any deduction on account of the factors such as payment in lump sum and the uncertainty of life. He has also urged that there should not have been any deduction on account of the factors such as payment in lump sum and the uncertainty of life. As regards the question of multiplier, the learned counsel for the claimants has urged that on the basis of the span of life of 65 years and the age of the deceased as 21 years when he would have started earning, the multiplier would be 44 and not 17 as applied by the learned Claims Tribunal. 9. In considering the first question about contributory negligence, it may be seen that the evidence of the driver himself, i.e., Suresh Chamke, NAW 1, would show that admittedly the truck driven by him was coming from behind the deceased Nutankumar and the other co-cyclists who were going to their Institute. It is also clear from his evidence that he had seen the first cyclist crossing the road and that the second cyclist, i.e., the deceased Nutankumar had also taken turn to cross the road. It is further clear from his evidence that when the deceased Nutankumar took a turn, the truck was at a distance of about 8' to 10' from him. It is thus clear from his evidence that when the deceased Nutankumar had taken a turn and was crossing the road to go to his Institute, the truck driver was 8' to 10' away and that he had seen Nutankumar crossing the road. Even otherwise, the fact that these boys were crossing the road was clear to the driver because the first cyclist had already crossed the road, the second cyclist, i.e., the deceased Nutankumar was crossing the road while the third cyclist had turned to cross the road. It may also be seen that the truck was coming from behind the boys and it was, therefore, necessary for the truck driver, i.e., Suresh to take the precaution of avoiding the accident, particularly when his truck was away and when he had even seen that the boys had started crossing the road. Since the deceased Nutankumar had already turned to cross the road when the truck was 8' to 10' away from it, it cannot be said that he was guilty of negligence, particularly when his co-student had already crossed the road. 10. Since the deceased Nutankumar had already turned to cross the road when the truck was 8' to 10' away from it, it cannot be said that he was guilty of negligence, particularly when his co-student had already crossed the road. 10. The theory set forth on behalf of the respondents that the accident took place because the third cyclist had dashed the bicycle of the deceased Nutankumar does not in any way support the contention that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased Nutankumar because as deposed to by Deepak, the third cyclist, AW 5, the bicycle of the deceased Nutankumar came to a halt all of a sudden because it was hit from behind by the truck and, therefore, the front wheel of his bicycle dashed against the stand of the bicycle of the deceased Nutankumar. He further deposed that the truck was coming at a very high speed and after giving dash, it swerved towards the left. Even making allowance for some exaggeration, it is clear that the deceased Nutankumar was perplexed because of the speeding truck towards him due to which he slowed down his bicycle and Deepak Kumar's bicycle dashed against his cycle. Be that as it may, it is because of the failure of the driver of the truck, i.e., Suresh, NAW 1, to reduce the speed and/or stop the truck by applying the brakes and thus allow the students who were in front of him to cross the road that the accident has taken place. There is thus no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased Nutankumar who had already turned to cross the road when the truck was admittedly 8' to 10' away from him. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant Corporation and the respondent No. 6 in this regard, therefore, deserves to be rejected. 11. As regards the mode of calculation of the compensation for the loss of pecuniary benefits to the claimants, there cannot be any doubt that the mode adopted by the learned Claims Tribunal is correct. However, as we would presently show, it has made confusion in applying the appropriate multiplier in his calculation. 11. As regards the mode of calculation of the compensation for the loss of pecuniary benefits to the claimants, there cannot be any doubt that the mode adopted by the learned Claims Tribunal is correct. However, as we would presently show, it has made confusion in applying the appropriate multiplier in his calculation. At the outset it is made clear that the finding that the span of life of an average Indian is upto 65 years is not challenged by the claimants in their appeal and, therefore, the claim for compensation has to be calculated on that basis although the Supreme Court recently has held that the span of life of an Indian nowadays is 70 years and not 65 years. There is no serious dispute on the question that after completing his training course as a machinist and after having been employed for one year as an apprentice, the deceased Nutankumar would have started earning by his regular employment from his age of 21 years. It is also not seriously in dispute that as deposed to by Suresh, AW 3, his monthly wages would have been Rs. 600/-. The finding of the learned Claims Tribunal that during the apprenticeship period, the deceased Nutankumar who would have earned stipend of Rs. 150/- per month for a period of one year and the stipend of Rs. 200/- per month for a period of next six months, would not have been able to save anything for his family because that was sufficient to meet his own expenses is correct as in fact, the respondent No. 1 was sending Rs. 50/- per month for the expenses of his deceased son. As regards the personal expenses of the deceased Nutankumar after his regular employment, the learned Claims Tribunal estimated the said expenses at Rs. 300/- per month. The above estimation of Rs. 300/- per month as personal expenses of the deceased Nutankumar is moderate estimation and, therefore, cannot be challenged as extravagant or unnecessary. The learned Claims Tribunal, therefore, rightly held that the benefit per month which would have accrued to the family of the deceased Nutankumar was Rs. 300/- per month from his age of 21 years. 12. 300/- per month as personal expenses of the deceased Nutankumar is moderate estimation and, therefore, cannot be challenged as extravagant or unnecessary. The learned Claims Tribunal, therefore, rightly held that the benefit per month which would have accrued to the family of the deceased Nutankumar was Rs. 300/- per month from his age of 21 years. 12. Taking into consideration the fact that Nutankumar would have been married at the age of 28 to 30 years as deposed to by his father, i.e., the respondent No. 1, the learned Claims Tribunal rightly held that the above benefit was available to the claimants for a period of 7 years, which comes to Rs. 25,200/-. After his marriage, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration the factor that he would have been required to spend upon his wife and his children, apart from his parents. The respondent No. 1, i.e., the father of the deceased Nutankumar deposed that he was earning Rs. 600/- to Rs. 650/- out of which he was paying Rs. 150/-to his parents and, therefore, he deposed that since the deceased Nutankumar was more qualified than him and, therefore, his earning would have been also more than him, he would have paid more amount to him. After taking into consideration the above evidence of the respondent No. 1 and also the factor that the wages of the deceased Nutankumar would have increased by reason of the increments which he might have received from time to time, the learned Claims Tribunal estimated the benefit which would have accrued to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month after the deceased had met his and his family expenses. 13. However, the mistake which the learned Claims Tribunal has committed is that at the rate of Rs. 250/-, i.e., Rs. 3,000/- per year, it has calculated the benefit for 17 years after taking the life span of the mother as 65 years. The learned Claims Tribunal has, however, failed to see that already for a period of 7 years, it had calculated the benefit of the claimants at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month. It further failed to see that the mother of the deceased was 48 years of age at the time of his death. The learned Claims Tribunal has, however, failed to see that already for a period of 7 years, it had calculated the benefit of the claimants at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month. It further failed to see that the mother of the deceased was 48 years of age at the time of his death. It means that she would have been 50 years of age when Nutankumar would have started earning at the age of 21 years. 7 years thereafter she would have been 57 and thus taking into consideration the span of life as 65, she could have received the benefit for 8 years more at the rate of Rs. 250/- p.m., i.e., Rs. 3,000/-per year and not for 17 years as held by the learned Claims Tribunal. The claimants would not have thus received the benefit to the extent of Rs. 51,000/- for 17 years as held by the learned Claims Tribunal but would have received the benefit to the extent of Rs. 24,000/- for 8 years at the rate of Rs. 3,000/-per year. Adding to it the amount of Rs. 25,200/-calculated for the first 7 years at the rate of Rs. 3,600/- per year, the total benefit to the claimants would be Rs. 49,200/- and not Rs. 76,000/- as calculated by the learned Claims Tribunal. 14. At this stage, we may dispose of the contention raised on behalf of the claimants that the multiplier should be 44 on the basis of the life expectancy of the deceased upto 65 years from his age of 21 years when he would have started earning and not 17 years on the basis that his mother, who was 48 years of age, would have received the benefit for 17 years considering her life expectancy as 65 years. The above contention raised on behalf of the claimants stands concluded against them by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of C.K. Subramania Iyer and Others Vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair and Others, in which it is observed that the life expectancy of the deceased or the beneficiaries whichever is shorter has to be taken into consideration. 15. The above contention raised on behalf of the claimants stands concluded against them by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of C.K. Subramania Iyer and Others Vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair and Others, in which it is observed that the life expectancy of the deceased or the beneficiaries whichever is shorter has to be taken into consideration. 15. Although the learned counsel for the claimants has urged before us that no deduction should have been made on the ground of uncertainties of life and payment in lump sum in the facts of this case, there is no merit in the above contention because determination of compensation is an estimation made on the basis of several factors and the above factors which are taken into consideration are very relevant factors. It may be seen that although the span of life is taken as 65 years it was possible that due to uncertainties of life, the deceased Nutankumar might not have lived up to that age; similarly, it may also be seen that the benefit which the claimants might have received from Nutankumar, if alive, would have been received by them in installments from his salary payable each month whereas on the basis of the above estimation they were entitled to receive in lump sum the amount of compensation which was thus a relevant factor to be taken into consideration. Normally the Supreme Court has allowed deduction on account of these factors upto 25 per cent of the compensation determined on the basis of the span of life, i.e., the multiplier theory. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the learned Claims Tribunal has allowed about 14 per cent to 15 per cent deduction on this count which we think is legitimate and just in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, allowing for 15 per cent deduction on account of the factor of uncertainties of life and payment in lump sum, the compensation which is payable to the claimants on account of pecuniary losses due to death of the deceased Nutankumar would be Rs. 41,850/-. 16. Therefore, allowing for 15 per cent deduction on account of the factor of uncertainties of life and payment in lump sum, the compensation which is payable to the claimants on account of pecuniary losses due to death of the deceased Nutankumar would be Rs. 41,850/-. 16. As regards the claim granted to the claimants on account of mental agony suffered by the parents of the deceased Nutankumar, it is well settled that compensation cannot be granted on account of mental agonies suffered by the claimants but can only be granted for the pain and suffering suffered by the deceased after the accident and before his death. In this view, we are supported by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of N. Sivammal and Others Vs. Managing Director, Pandian Roadways Corporation and Another. There is no question of granting compensation for pain and suffering of the deceased in the instant case because the boy died on the spot. The claim of Rs. 3,000/- granted by the Claims Tribunal on the ground of mental agonies suffered by the claimants has, therefore, to be disallowed. The claimants are, therefore, entitled to the compensation of Rs. 41,850/-. 17. The last question which arises for consideration is about the interest payable to the claimants upon the above amount of compensation. The learned counsel for the claimants has urged that u/s 110-CC of the Motor Vehicles Act he should have been granted interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date the compensation is paid to the claimants. He has further urged that since the claim petition before the learned Claims Tribunal has to be filed in the prescribed form and since the said form did not contain any column relating to interest, no interest was claimed in the claim petition. However, the same is claimed in the appeal preferred by the claimants in this court. Without going into the question whether the claimants before the Claims Tribunal were unable to claim interest for the above reason given by them, we are of the view that the claimants are entitled to interest u/s 110-CC of the Motor Vehicles Act from the date of the claim petition, particularly when we have modified the amount of compensation in favour of the appellant Corporation and the respondent No. 7. However, the rate of 12 per cent per annum as claimed by the claimants is on a higher side and we feel that the ends of justice would be met if we fix the rate of interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date the respondent No. 6 had deposited Rs. 40,000/- with the learned Claims Tribunal pursuant to its award dated 21.7.1979. The balance amount of Rs. 1,850/-which was not deposited is a meagre amount which shall not carry further interest till it is deposited. However, the interest of the claimants can be secured by directing the appellant and the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 to deposit the said amount within a stipulated time. 18. The learned counsel for the claimants had at the outset requested us to adjourn the hearing of these appeals on the ground that his clients want to engage some other senior counsel in the case. Since these are old matters of the year 1980, we did not accept the above request made by the learned counsel for the claimants who is himself a pretty senior counsel and has ably argued before us the case on behalf of the claimants. 19. In the result, the instant appeals partly succeed and the impugned award of the learned Claims Tribunal is modified as follows; The appellant, i.e., the Corporation of the City of Nagpur and the respondent No. 7, i.e., Suresh Bhayalal Chamke shall pay an amount of Rs. 41,850/- with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition filed by the claimants till the date the amount of Rs. 40,000/- was deposited by the respondent No. 6, i.e., the insurance company with the Claims Tribunal and the proportionate costs to the claimants of the trial court. The liability of the respondent No. 6, insurance company, is fixed at Rs. 50,000/- or the lesser amount which the appellant Corporation and the respondent No. 7 are liable to pay with proportionate costs of the trial court. As regards the costs in these appeals, since all the three appeals partly succeed, the parties shall bear their own costs in this appeal.