JUDGMENT A.R. Tiwari, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed against the award passed by the Second Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No. 74/79 on 1.4.1983. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case were that the appellant and his brother Alamgir were proceeding from Malgodown Road towards Snehlataganj, Indore at 9.00 p.m. on 5.12.1978 when the respondent No. 2 who was driving the truck, bearing registration No. MHS-8508 at that time dashed it against these two persons and caused injuries on their persons Alamgir has also preferred a claim on account of injuries sustained by him. His Appeal No. M.A. 213/83 was also heard and decided today. It was asserted that the respondent No. 2, the driver of the vehicle in question drove the vehicle rashly and negligently. The respondent No. 1 is the owner of the vehicle and respondent No. 3 is the Insurance Company where this vehicle was insured. The appellant sustained injuries. On these facts and appellant filed the claim-petition praying for grant of the award of Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. The respondents denied their liability. The learned Member of the Tribunal, after evaluation of the evidence produced by the parties, accepted the claim petition only in part and granted the award of Rs. 1,500/- only with proportionate costs together with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of application i.e., 4.4.1979 till realisation. Partly aggrieved by this award, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. I have heard the appeal and perused the record. 4. The findings are recorded by the Tribunal are not disputed. The only point for determination in this appeal is whether the quantum of damages as fixed by the Tribunal needs to be enhanced. The grievance in this appeal is two-folds-- (1) The quantum is grossly adequate. (2) The rate of interest as awarded is also low. 5. The learned Member of the Tribunal had framed one issue in the case as regards the injuries sustained by the appellant. This issue was partly answered in favour of the appellant. The evaluation of evidence led to the following conclusion: The result of the above discussion is that Allauddin sustained simple injury on the right wrist and lower part of forearm but there was no fracture. This issue was partly answered in favour of the appellant. The evaluation of evidence led to the following conclusion: The result of the above discussion is that Allauddin sustained simple injury on the right wrist and lower part of forearm but there was no fracture. It is proved that his wrist and lower part of right forearm was put under plaster for one month. The issue No. 2 is thus, accordingly answered in favour of the applicant and against the non-applicants. 6. It is clear that the wrist and lower part of right forearm were put under plaster for one month. 7. It has come in evidence that the appellant was student of VIIth Class at the time of accident and was an active helper to his father in the business. The claim of special damages was however, negatived. 8. In 1970 ACJ 189 Vinod Kumar Shrivastava v. Ved Mitra and Ors. this Court has laid down the principles for award of damages in case of personal injuries: (a) The amount of compensation must be reasonable and needs to be assessed with moderation. (b) The qualification should be with due regard to comparable cases. (c) The level Should to a considerable extent be conventional. 9. Tested on the aforesaid principles, I find that the award is grossly inadequate and deserves to be suitably modified. 10. The provisions are surely benevolent ones and aim at awarding of just compensation to the victim. The amount awarded in this case is ex facie meager and grossly inadequate. 11. As regards the rate of interest, it is noticed that the accident had occurred on 5.12.1978. The claim petition was filed on 4.4.1979. In Smt. Anjani's case 1992 MPWN (Vol. I) 19 the Division Bench of this Court spoke on the question of interest as under: The accident took place in 1977. Taking into account the devaluation of rupee since then the rate of interest has to be realistic to partly off set the effect of devaluation. 12. Following the aforesaid principles, I find that the rate of interest in this case deserves to be enhanced to 9% p.a. 13. It may be stated that, faced with the facts of this case, the level of enhancement in quantum and interest was not seriously disputed. 14. In the result, I hold that an amount of Rs. 4,500/- in my view would be just and reasonable compensation. It may be stated that, faced with the facts of this case, the level of enhancement in quantum and interest was not seriously disputed. 14. In the result, I hold that an amount of Rs. 4,500/- in my view would be just and reasonable compensation. 15. The award is accordingly modified as under: (1) The respondents shall pay to the appellant the amount of Rs. 4,500/- instead of Rs. 1,500/-as awarded by the Tribunal. (2) The respondents shall pay interest on the aforesaid sum of Rs. 4,500/- at the rate of 9% per annum (instead of @ 6% per annum) from 4.4.1979 till realisation. 16. The respondent No. 3 is specified as the authority to discharge the aforesaid obligation. 17. This appeal thus, stands allowed in part in terms indicated above. The respondent No. 3 shall bear its own costs and shall also pay the costs of the appellant quantified at Rs. 250/-. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are left to bear their own costs. Memo of no costs be prepared. 18. The record of the Tribunal shall be returned immediately.