JUDGMENT This appeal by the claimant is directed against the award passed by the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior on 26.11.1990. The facts may be narrated briefly. While the claimant/appellant on 1.8.87, at about 1.00 p.m. riding on a cycle was proceeding towards Dabra on his left side of the road, the truck No.C.P.H. 7034, owned by respondent No.1 coming from opposite direction, being driven rashly, negligently, by approaching on the wrong side dashed against the cycle causing injuries to the claimant/appellant on his both legs, and the right hand. Resultantly, his right thigh suffered the fracture of femur and tibia and also fibula of the left leg. Alna bone of the right hand was also fractured. The said truck did not stop and was driven away from the spot. The report of the accident was lodged with P.S. Dabra, and the appellant was taken to Dabra Hospital where from he was removed to a private nursing home, where his both the legs and the right hand were put under plaster, and the appellant was confined to bed. Even after the treatment his one leg has gone short by 5 c.m. Under the different, heads a claim was preferred by the appellant for an amount of Rs.2,58,400/-, out of which the learned Tribunal passed an award for Rs.33,000/-. In this Court, the appellant has confined his prayer for the claim of Rs.50,000/-. The learned tribunal on evidence found that the appellant/claimant suffered injuries in the accident. The driver of the said truck was not examined by the respondents. At-the time of accident, age of the appellant was found to be of 14 years and he was found to be carrying on the profession of cattle grazing and was earning around Rs.500/- p.m. therefrom. The serious challenge is made to the findings of the learned Tribunal particularly with regard to the assessment of the loss of earning, due to the permanent disability of the appellant, which has been calculated at Rs.75/-p.m. and also to the 12% awarded rate of interest. The counsel for respondents supported the award submitting that the loss of earning of the appellant was rightly assessed at Rs.75/- per month, and the rate of interest being reasonable required no interference. The counsel for respondents supported the award submitting that the loss of earning of the appellant was rightly assessed at Rs.75/- per month, and the rate of interest being reasonable required no interference. There is no clear finding of the learned Tribunal about the monthly income of the appellant, whereas from the evidence of the appellant and his witnesses the fact was amply proved that he was earning Rs.500/-p.m. The claimant has the life before him and on obtaining majority even if he worked as casual labour the minimum amount that he could earn could in no case be less than Rs.500/p.m. with the present price rise and the inflation the amount of Rs.500/- is a meagre amount through which one can hardly bring the two ends together. The learned Tribunal found that the appellant suffered permanent disability. His one leg has gone short by 5 c.m. Although, every part of the body is important, but the legs carry the body-weight and provide strength to work. By the shortening of a leg, the earning and working capacity of the appellant is substantially reduced. The learned Tribunal has given no reasons for assessing the earning loss at Rs.75/-p.m. In the circumstances, on the evidence in the case, it would be just and proper to assess the lossofearningatRs.100/-p.m. which comes to Rs.1200/- per annum and applying the formula adopted by the learned Tribunal the amount on this head would come to Rs.20,000/- in round figures. The appellant/claimant deserves to be allowed this amount. With regard to the second contention of the appellant that the learned Tribunal has wrongly allowed interest at the rate of Rs.12% per annum from 12.12.87 till realization of the awarded sum which is not justified in the present circumstances. The learned counsel Shri B.N. Malhotra for the respondents has relied upon a Full Branch decision of this Court Bakaram chand v. Chhuttan and others 1991 JLJ 733 to submit that 12% awarded interest was found to be reasonable. The learned counsel Shri B.N. Malhotra for the respondents has relied upon a Full Branch decision of this Court Bakaram chand v. Chhuttan and others 1991 JLJ 733 to submit that 12% awarded interest was found to be reasonable. In that authority a reference was made to a case of State of M.P. v. Shantibai (1986 (1) M.PW.N 54), wherein the interest rate was raised to 12% from 6% p.m. and the inspiration for this view was derived from the authority of Gauhati High Court in United India Fire and General Assurance Company v. Malti Bala (1988 (I) Gauhati L.B 443), wherein the Tribunal was defaulted by the High Court for not giving reasons for awarding only 6% per annum and not the higher interest. But looking at the present trend of rising prices and considering the rise in the rate of interest by the Commercial Bank, since the above authority, which has gone to more than 12% per annum allowing the interest at the rate of Rs.18% per annum would be just, proper and reasonable in the circumstances. The practice of the Courts or the tribunals in allowing the interest at a particular rate cannot be static and has to match with the changing time, particularly when money is losing its value every day. This Court in a recent decision in M.P.S.R. T.C. v. Smt. Anjani Chaturvedi (1992 (I) M P W N S N 19), has observed that the rate of interest has to be realistic and awarded 18% per annum to the claimant. As a sequel of the above discussion the appeal is partly allowed setting aside the award to the extent that the amount for the loss of earning of the claimant/appellant due to his permanent disability is assessed it Rs.20,000/- and is so awarded. Thus, raising the total amount of award to Rs.20,000/-, the appellant is further held to be entitled to the interest on the awarded sum from 12.12.87 till its realisation at the rate of 18% per annum. Costs of this appeal shall be borne by the respondents. Counsel fee Rs.500/-, if certified.