JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed for the enhancement of the amount of compensation against the judgment of the learned Judge Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udaipur dated May 28, 1982 by which Rs. 75,000/- have been awarded as compensation to the claimant-appellants. 2. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus. On October 10, 1974, the deceased Kantilal was going from Jaipur to Udaipur in Bus No. RSM 9760. It was owned by Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short RSRTC) and was being driven by its driver Sher Mohd. (respondent No. 5). When it reached near the village Chanderia (Chittorgarh) at about 1 p.m., truck No. MHB 6317 was coming with an excessive speed from the opposite direction. It was registered in the name of Jitendrapal Singh (respondent No. 1) and was insured with the United India Fire and General Insurance Company (respondent No. 6). It was being driven by its driver Abdul Mazid (respondent No. 4). It had been earlier sold to Madanlal (respondent No. 2). There was head-on-collision of the said vehicles with a tremendous force. The truck turtled down on the road and the bus fell into a ditch on the kachha portion of the road. As a result thereof, several passengers of the bus including KANTILAL got injured. They were removed to the Government Hospital, Chittorgarh. The injured Knatilal died there at about 3.30 p.m. the same day. The claimant appellant No. 1 Lilaben is his widow, No. 2 Bhagwati is his daughter and Nos.3 Mahendra and No. 4 Navin are his sons. The deceased had two sources of income i.e. agriculture and partnership business. His net income was over Rs. 10,000/- per year. He was paying income-tax. On March 19, 1975, the claim petition was filed claiming Rs. 3.03,000/- as compensation. 3. The RSRTC, its driver Sher Mohd. and United India Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd., have filed their separate written-statements admitting that the accident took place in between the said two vehicles near the village Chanderia, several passengers received injuries including Kantilal and he died the same day as a result of the injuries received in the accident. The RSRTC and its driver have averred that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver Abdul Mazid (respondent No. 4). The RSRTC and its driver have averred that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver Abdul Mazid (respondent No. 4). The opposite party- respondent No. 2 Madanlal has filed his separate written statement traversing all the averments of the claim petition. He has also averred that the said truck No. MHB 6317 had not been purchased by him and it is still owned by Jitendrapal Singh (O.P. No. 1). The truck owner Jitendrapal Singh and its driver Abdul Mazid did not file their written statement and case proceeded ex parte against them. The Tribunal had framed 8 issues. After recording the evidence of the claimants and Madanlal (O.P. No. 2) and hearing the parties, the Tribunal gave the said award. Opposite parties except O.P. No. 2 Madanlal did not produce any evidence. 4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the claimant-appellants that the Tribunal seriously erred to award Rs. 75,000/- as compensation, in not taking into consideration loss to the estate of the deceased, to award interest @ 6% only and that too from the date of the award i.e., May 28,1982. He further contended that the Tribunal had been too miser to estimate the income of the deceased Kantilal and interest should have been awarded atleast @ 15% p.a. from the date of the filing of the claim petition i.e., March 19, 1975. He also contended that the Tribunal should have applied the multiple of atleast 25 and the consortium should have been awarded. He relied upon Rukmani Devi v. Om Prakash [ 1990 ACJ 687 (SC)] ; Swaran Kaur v. Union of India, [ 1992 ACJ 790 (P&H)] ; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohinder Kaur [ 1989 ACJ 343 (Raj)] ; RSRTC v. Pista Agrawal [ 1991 ACJ 890 (Raj)] and Prem Kanwar v. RSRTC [1988 ACJ 65 (Raj)] . 5. The learned counsel for the RSRTC contended that the Tribunal seriously erred to hold that the driver of the bus was also rash and negligent in driving his bus. Ltd. v. Mohinder Kaur [ 1989 ACJ 343 (Raj)] ; RSRTC v. Pista Agrawal [ 1991 ACJ 890 (Raj)] and Prem Kanwar v. RSRTC [1988 ACJ 65 (Raj)] . 5. The learned counsel for the RSRTC contended that the Tribunal seriously erred to hold that the driver of the bus was also rash and negligent in driving his bus. I He also contended that the Tribunal seriously erred to apply multiple of 20 and it should not have exceeded 15, the Tribunal rightly granted interest from the date of the award as the delay in deciding the claim petition occurred due to the inaction on the part of the claimants themselves, there was no delay on the part of the RSRTC I and interest at the enhanced rate may be granted on the difference amount. He I relied upon Smt. Chameli Wati v. Delhi Municipal Corporation of Delhi [ AIR 1986 SC 1191 ] ; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s Swaranlata Das [ AIR 1993 SC 1259 ] ; N. Sivammal v. The Managing Director, Pandian Roadways Corpon [ AIR 1985 SC 106 ] ; Mohd. Yunus v. V.K Nayyar [ 1987 (2) ACJ 771 ] ; Smt. Chameli Wati v. Delhi Municipal Corporation of Delhi [AIR 1982 Delhi 575] ; Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. M/s Rampuri Ice Factory Ltd. [ AIR 1974 Raj. 192 ] ; Ganga Sahai v. Suraj Prasad [ AIR 1986 Raj. 212 ] and RSRTC v. Smt. Pista Agrawal [ 1985 (1) WLN 415 ] . 6. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company duly supported the Award. 7. Shiv Lai PW 2 and Ganpat Bhai PW 3 were travelling along with the deceased Knatilal in the bus No. RSM, 9760 on the day of the accident. They have deposed that the drivers of both the vehicles i.e., truck NO. MHB 6317 and bus No. RSM 9760, were driving their vehicles rashly and negligently. Both have categorically stated on oath that both the drivers did not give side to the fast approaching vehicle in the opposite direction, both the vehicles collided with great force, truck trutled down on the pucca road and the bus fell into a ditch of the kachha road. No driver of any offending vehicle could dare to come in the witness box. The driver of the truck Abdul Mazid (OP No. 4) did not file his written statement even. No driver of any offending vehicle could dare to come in the witness box. The driver of the truck Abdul Mazid (OP No. 4) did not file his written statement even. An adverse j inference can safely be drawn against both of them. The testimony of the eye-witnesses Shivlal PW 2 and Ganpat Bhai PW 3 has gone unrebutted. Nothing damaging could be elicited out in their cross-examination. The very fact that there was head-on-collision in the middle of the road leaves no manner of doubt to hold that the drivers of both the offending vehicles were highly rash and negligent in driving their vehicles. The Tribunal has rightly held that both of them were responsible for causing the accident. There is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the RSRTC that the driver of the bus was not responsible for the accident. 8. The first question for consideration is whether the amount of compensation deserves to be enhanced. It has been averred in the claim petition that the deceased Kantilal had two sources. of income i.e., from agriculture and partnership business, he was having income of Rs. 4,5000/- per annum from agriculture and of Rs. 5,600/- from partnership firm M/s Patidar & Brothers and after his death there is a total loss of income from partnership firm and loss of partial income of Rs. 3,000/- from agriculture, total loss of Rs. 5,600/- + 3,000/- = Rs. 8,600/- per annum. His widow Lilaben P.W. 1 has deposed that her husband Kantilal used to get Rs. 6,000/- per annum as his share income from the partnership firm M/s Patidar Brothers and Rs. 4,500/ from agriculture. She has further deposed that after his death a man has to be kept for carrying on agriculture and the net income from agriculture is only Rs. 1,500/-. She has also deposed that there is now no income from the partnership business. As such the loss to the family is to the extent of Rs. 6,000/- + Rs. 4,500/- - Rs. 1,500/- = Rs. 9,0000/-. Similar is the statement of Shivlal P.W. 2. He was also one of the partners of M/s. Patidar and Bros. Tax practitioner Dalsukh Bhai P.W. 4 has deposed that he filed the income-tax assessment return of the deceased Kantilal relating to Smt. 2028-29 on September 6, 1974 whose receipt is Ex. 19. 4,500/- - Rs. 1,500/- = Rs. 9,0000/-. Similar is the statement of Shivlal P.W. 2. He was also one of the partners of M/s. Patidar and Bros. Tax practitioner Dalsukh Bhai P.W. 4 has deposed that he filed the income-tax assessment return of the deceased Kantilal relating to Smt. 2028-29 on September 6, 1974 whose receipt is Ex. 19. The accident took place on October 10, 1974. He has further deposed that return relating to the subsequent year was filed by him after his death, in his return he showed share income of Kantilal to be Rs. 5,560/- and the assessment orders Ex. 4 and 5 were issued. Nothing damaging could be elicited out in his lengthy cross-examination. Lilaben P.W. 1 has deposed that Kantilal used to spend Rs. 5000-600 per annum upon himself. It appears that this represents his sundry expenses and not total of amount required for his maintenance. It may be estimated to be one third of his total income. As a result of the death of Kantilal in the accident, the family has thus suffered loss of Rs. 5560 + 4500 - 1500 = 8560 x ⅔ = Rs. 5,907. Tax practitioner Dalsukh Bhai P.W. 4 has further deposed that the income of the partnership firm was gradually increasing. He has not been cross-examined on this point. Taking into consideration the gradual increase in the income of the partnership firm and the continuous price escalation, loss to the claimants may be calculated, atleast @ Rs. 7,000/- per annum. The Tribunal has applied the multiple of 20. In view of the latest decision of the Honble Supreme Court given in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivendrum v. Smt. Sushma Thomas [SLP (Civil) No. 9583 of 1992 on January 6, 1993] , multiple exceeding 16 cannot be taken into consideration for calculating the amount of compensation. Thus the claimants are entitled to get Rs. 7,000 x 16 x 1,12,000. 9. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,000/- only as consortium. This is very manager amount. The age of Lila Ben P.W. 1 was 26 years at the time of accident. She has to spend a long period as a widow. It deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 10,000. 10. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount under head pain and suffering. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,000/- only as consortium. This is very manager amount. The age of Lila Ben P.W. 1 was 26 years at the time of accident. She has to spend a long period as a widow. It deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 10,000. 10. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount under head pain and suffering. The accident took place at 1.00 p.m. and the deceased died at 3.30 p.m. During this period the deceased Kantilal must have suffered severe pain and suffering. The claimants are, therefore, entitled to get atleast Rs. 5,000/- under this head. 11. There is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the claimant-appellants that the learned Tribunal did not take into consideration loss to the estate of the deceased Kantilal. The claimant Lila Ben P.W. 1 has clearly admitted in her cross-examination that the entire earnings of her husband used to be spent up, there was no saving and he had left no money behind him. When there was no saving, there was no question of the loss to the estate of the deceased. The claimants are entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,12,000 + Rs. 10,000/-+ Rs. 5,000/-, total Rs. 1,27,000. 12. The next question for consideration is about the rate of interest and date from which it is to be paid. In Rukmani Devi v. Om Prakash [ 1992 ACJ 687 (SC) (also reported in 1991 (1) ACJ 3 (SC)] , the Honble Supreme Court has awarded interest @15% from the date of the petition till realisation. 1,27,000. 12. The next question for consideration is about the rate of interest and date from which it is to be paid. In Rukmani Devi v. Om Prakash [ 1992 ACJ 687 (SC) (also reported in 1991 (1) ACJ 3 (SC)] , the Honble Supreme Court has awarded interest @15% from the date of the petition till realisation. This Court in Jagbir Singh v. G.M. Punjab Roadways [1987 ACJ 645 (SC)] ; Hassamal v. Jagti Ram [ 1986 ACJ 1121 ] ; Tejpal Singh v. RSRTC [ 1986 ACJ 720 ] ; Sahabuddin v. Dagala [1986 ACJ 343] ; Teja v. Ramratan [1986 ACJ 125] ; Hira Singh v. Dayal Singh [ 1986 ACJ 586 ] ; Prakash Chand v. Alladeen [1986 ACJ 343] ; Kishroe Singh v. Bharat Singh [ 1987 ACJ 700 ] ; RSRTC v. Jhami Bai [1987 ACJ 497] ; Rahdeyshyam v. Keshav Prasad Jain [1987 ACJ 248] ; Roop Narain v. Avtar Singh [ 1987 ACJ 336 ] ; Phooli Devi v. Indrajeet Singh [ 1988 ACJ 400 ] ; New India Assurance Company v. Vidhya Devi [ 1988 ACJ 558 ] ; RSRTC v. Kiran Singh [1988 ACJ 117] ; Sampat Kumar Bai v. Guruvinder [ 1988 ACJ 342 ] ; Godalal v. Rajendra Kumar [ 1988 ACJ 154 ] ; Chand Bai v. Bharat Kumar [ 1988 ACJ 51 ] ; Tara Chand v. Chokali [ 1989 ACJ 802 ] and Amar Lai v. Devilal [ 1989 ACJ 275 ] has awarded interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the filing of the claim petition to the date of payment. There is no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the RSRTC that the delay occurred on account of the inaction and non-prosecution of the claim petition on the part of the claimants. Delay mainly occurred in effecting service of the summons upon the opposite parties and adjournments sought by them. The claimants are entitled to get interest atleast @ 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition (March 19,1975) to the date of the payment of the amount of compensation. 13. Delay mainly occurred in effecting service of the summons upon the opposite parties and adjournments sought by them. The claimants are entitled to get interest atleast @ 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition (March 19,1975) to the date of the payment of the amount of compensation. 13. It has been observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in para No. 17 of the judgment given on January 6, 1993 in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 9583/92 [General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivendraum v. Smt. Sushma Thomas] , as follows : "In a case of compensation for death it is appropriate that the Tribunals do keep in mind the principles enunciated by this Court in Union Carbide Corpon. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [ 1991 (4) SCC 584 ] in the matter of appropriate investments to safegurard the feed from being flittered away by the beneficiaries owing to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptible to exploitation. In that case approving the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Muljibhai Ajarambhai Harijan & Anr. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. [1982 (1) Guj. LR 756] , this Court offered the following guidelines : (i) the claims Tribunal should, in the case of minors, invariably order the amount of compensation awarded to the minor invested in long term fixed deposits at least till the date of the minor attaining majority. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. [1982 (1) Guj. LR 756] , this Court offered the following guidelines : (i) the claims Tribunal should, in the case of minors, invariably order the amount of compensation awarded to the minor invested in long term fixed deposits at least till the date of the minor attaining majority. The expenses incurred by the guardian or next friend may however be allowed to be withdrawn; (ii) In the case of illiterate claimants also the Claims Tribunal should follow the procedure set out in (i) above, but if lump sum payment is required for effecting purchases of any movable or immovable property, such as, agricultural implements, reckshaw, etc., to earn a living, the Tribunal may consider such a request after making sure that the amount is actually spent for the purpose and the demand is not a rouge to withdraw money; (iii) In the case of semi-literate persons the Tribunal, should ordinarily resort to the procedure set out at (i) above unless it is satisfied, for reasons to be stated in writing, that the whole or part of the amount is required for expanding and existing business or for purchasing some property as mentioned in (ii) above for earning his livelihood, in which case the Tribunal will ensure that the amount is invested for the purpose for which is demanded and paid; (iv) In the case of literate persons also the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in (i) above, subject to the relaxation set out in (ii) and (iii) above, if having regard to the age, fiscal background and strata of- society to which the claimant belongs and such other considerations, the Tribunal in the larger interest of the claimant and with a view to ensuring the safety of the compensation awarded to him thinks it necessary to do order; (v) In the case of widows the Claims tribunal should invariably follow the procedure set out in (i) above; (vi) In personal injury cases if further treatment is necessary the Claims Tribunal on being satisfied about the same, which shall be recorded in writing, permit withdrawal of such amount as is necessary for incurring the expenses for such treatment; (vii) In all cases in which investment in long terms fixed deposits is made it should be on condition that the Dank will not permit any loan or advance on the fixed deposit and interest on the amount invested is paid monthly directly to the claimant or his guardian, as the case may be; (viii) In all cases Tribunal should grant to the claimants liberty to apply for withdrawal in case of an emergency. To meet with such a contingency, if the amount awarded is substantial, the Claims Tribunal may invest it in more than one Fixed Deposit so that if need be one such F.D.R. can be liquidated." These guidelines should be borne in mind by the tribunals in the cases of compensation in accident cases. 14. It has further been observed in para No. 49, as follows : "Tribunal will take all this into account and invest as much of the amount as it thinks reasonable in several deposits yielding adequate returns permitting the claimants to withdraw the interest periodically to be used for their maintenance and up-keep. The Tribunal will make appropriate orders within two months from the date of the deposit of the balance to be made by the appellant with interest @ 12% per annum." 15. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed with costs. The amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs. 75,000/- to Rs. 1,27,000/-. Interest is awarded @ 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition i.e., March 19, 1975 to the date of payment. The amount already paid by the respondents to the claimants will duly be adjusted. It will also be taken into consideration while calculating the total amount of interest payable to the claimants. The amount which may be received by the claimant-appellants from the respondents in pursuance of this order will be invested as per the above quoted directions of Honble Supreme Court. To the above noted extent, the award of the Tribunal is modified. *******