JUDGMENT A.R. Tiwari, J. 1. This appeal, presented under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, is directed against the quantum of Award dated 19.10.1981 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ujjain, in Claim Case No. 32 of 1979. 2. The factual matrix in brief is that respondent No. 1 owned the bus bearing registration number MPH 9191. It was insured with respondent No. 2, The New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Ujjain. At the relevant time it was driven rashly and negligently by Abdulgani. On 15.6.1979, this bus knock down one Alam and caused his death by accident. The Legal Representatives of the deceased Alam presented the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/-. The respondents resisted the claim and pleaded their impeccability. The Tribunal on evaluation of the evidence granted compensation of Rs. 2.2,500/- together with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application dated 23.7.1979 till realisation. Aggrieved by the quantum of the Award, the appellants have preferred this appeal seeking enhancement. 3. I have heard Mr. K.S. Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. M.L. Dhupar, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2. None appears for respondent No. 1. 4. Sh. K.S. Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellants strenuously submitted that the Award amount is too low and deserves to be enhanced reasonably. He also submitted that even the interest is very low and this too merits upward revision. Mr. Dhupar, learned Counsel on the contrary supported the Award and submitted that there is no ground to interfere in the same. 5. I have given anxious consideration to the rival contention. 6. The only question falling for consideration in this appeal is whether the amount of Award is just and reasonable and whether interest deserves to be enhanced. 7. The principles, as regards the fixation of quantum, have been laid down in 1970 ACJ 189 Vinod Kumar Shrivastava v. Ved Mitra. The principles are as under: (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. 8. Having noticed the principles, now is the time to come to the facts. The deceased was an agriculturist. The income from agriculture was Rs. 5,000/- per annum. The sum of Rs. 250/- per month i.e. Rs. (b) The quantification should be with due regard to comparable cases. (c) The level should, to a considerable extent, be conventional. 8. Having noticed the principles, now is the time to come to the facts. The deceased was an agriculturist. The income from agriculture was Rs. 5,000/- per annum. The sum of Rs. 250/- per month i.e. Rs. 3,000/- per annum was being spent on himself. As a result of this, he was able to contribute a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per annum towards his family. He is survived by his wife, two minor sons and two daughters. He was, at the time of accident, of 50 years of age. Applying multiplier of 16, the sum of Rs. 32,000/- would be just and reasonable compensation. As regards the compensation towards pain, I find that the sum of Rs. 3,000/- would be reasonable level. In this view of the matter, the claimants should have been awarded compensation of Rs. 35,000/-. The Tribunal awarded only Rs. 22,500/-. Luculently enough, the Award deserves to be modified accordingly. 9. As regards the interest, I find that there is enough justification to enhance the same in the fact of marked visibility of devaluation; can any one look upon a rupee as a rupee? There is mountainous devaluation and the value of the rupee is dropped to cavernous depth. The minimum level is now 12% per annum. It is, therefore, just and proper to enhance the rate of interest from 6% per annum to 12% per annum. 10. In the circumstances this appeal is allowed in part. The Award of the Tribunal is modified in this way that the respondents shall pay compensation of Rs. 35.000/- instead of Rs. 22,500/- together with interest @ 12% instead of 6% per annum on this amount from the date of application i.e. 23.7.1979 till realisation. The direction of costs as contained in the impugned order shall remain unaltered. As regards costs of this appeal, the parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal as incurred. 11 The appeal is thus allowed in part and the Award is modified as above. The record of the Tribunal shall be returned immediately.