JUDGMENT A.R. Tiwari, J. 1. This miscellaneous appeal presented under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against Award dated 6.9.1983 made by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jhabua in Claim Case No. 24/82. 2. The claimant has prayed for enhancement of the amount. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 31.7.1982 at about 9.30 a.m. truck bearing registration No. CTK 4377 owned by Lalchand respondent No. 1 and driven by Dinesh Kumar (respondent No. 2) knocked down Manjubala minor daughter aged 7 years of Ratichand. The vehicle was driven rashly and negligently. Kumari Manjubala suffered injuries prodigious in number. There was fracture in her left hand. She had to be hospitalised for about 16 days in the hospital at Jhabua. The claim petition was presented claiming compensation of Rs. 62,000/-. The respondents denied their liability. On evaluation of evidence, the Tribunal passed Award of Rs. 3,000/- against all the respondents together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of application i.e. 25.11.1982. Aggrieved by the quantum of the Award the appellant has preferred this appeal. 4. I have heard Shri G.K. Neema learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri Kochatta learned Counsel for the respondents and have perused the record. 5. In 1970 A.C.J. 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 suffered by accident. (a) The amount of compensation must be reasonable and needs to be assessed with moderation. (b) The quantification should be with due regard to comparable cases; (c) The level should, to a considerable extent, be conventional. 6. Tested on the aforesaid principles, I find that the Award is inadequate and deserves to be suitably modified. 7. The Act is a benevolent legislation and its avowed object is to compensate the victim properly. Being a welfare legislation, its intendment ought to be kept in mind. 8. Taking into account the extent of injuries as also legislative intent demonstrated on the principle of 'no fault liability', I think amount of Rs. 7,000/- would be just and fair compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by the claimant. 9. The Award is, thus, modified to Rs. 7,000/- instead of Rs. 3,000/-. 10. As regards interest it is seen that the accident occurred on 31.7.1982. 7,000/- would be just and fair compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by the claimant. 9. The Award is, thus, modified to Rs. 7,000/- instead of Rs. 3,000/-. 10. As regards interest it is seen that the accident occurred on 31.7.1982. There is admittedly devaluation of rupee since then. In 1992 MPWN (I) 19 MPSRTC v. Smt. Anjani Chaturvedi, it is held that- Taking into account the devaluation of rupee since then, the rate of interest has to be realistic to partly offset the effect of devaluation and therefore the same is enhanced from 6 to 18% p.a. and is allowed from the date of application before the Tribunal. 11. However, in this case looking to the date of accident I feel that interest at the rate of 12% would be quite reasonable. It is, therefore, just and proper to increase the level of interest from 6% to 12% as some relief against the effect of such a situation. 12. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and the Award of the Tribunal is modified in asmuchas the appellant is held entitled to get from the respondents an amount of Rs. 7,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of application i.e. 25.11.1982. 13. There shall, however, be no order as to costs of this appeal. 14. The record of the Tribunal shall be returned immediately.