JUDGMENT U.L. Bhat, C.J. 1. The insurer against whom the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal passed an award has filed this appeal. 2. The accident in this case took place on 20.12.1989. According to claimants, Munnibai aged 20 years, daughter of PW 1 and PW 5 along with other labourers was travelling in a truck loaded with stone chips. She had left her watch in the field and wanted to fetch it. She asked the driver of the truck to stop the vehicle which he did. While she was alighting from the vehicle, the driver rashly and negligently started and drove the vehicle as a result of which she fell down and got entangled under the wheel of the vehicle and was dragged. She sustained injuries and died. Her parents aged 55 and 50 years respectively filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- against driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle. The owner and driver remained ex pane. The insurer filed written statement denying all the material averments and pleading exoneration. Tribunal held that Munnibai died on account of the injuries sustained as a result of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle and awarded compensation of Rs. 60,600/- with interest of 15 per cent per annum from the date of application and costs. The insurer being aggrieved has filed this appeal. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the claimants raised an objection regarding the maintainability of appeal by the insurer in regard to the findings of quantum, rash and negligent driving and the rate of interest. The answer of the appellant is that this was a clear case of collusion between the claimants and the driver and owner of the vehicle, such collusion was alleged in the statement of insurer and at the stage of evidence, the counsel for insurer prayed before the Tribunal for permission to cross-examine in regard to all aspects of the matter, such permission was granted and cross-examination was permitted. In other words, according to learned counsel, the Tribunal granted permission to the appellant to raise defences appropriate to the owner and the driver. On a reading of the written statement and the depositions, these submissions appear to be correct. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the insurer can urge these contentions. 4. The claim petition does not give particulars about the accident. On a reading of the written statement and the depositions, these submissions appear to be correct. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the insurer can urge these contentions. 4. The claim petition does not give particulars about the accident. The accident took place in the presence of Munnibai's mother, PW 5 and other independent witnesses, namely, PWs 2 and 4 who were Munnibai's co-workers. All these witnesses deposed that the truck was stopped at the request of Munnibai and while she was alighting, the driver started and drove the truck, as a result of which she fell down and was dragged and sustained injuries. Learned counsel for the appellant read before me the contents of a photocopy of the F.I.R. said to have been prepared by the police officer concerned. It states that the police officer received information that Munnibai sustained injuries on account of fall of stone from above at the mine where she was working, that the police officer went to the site, held inquest of the dead body and obtained information that the injuries were actually sustained in a motor vehicle accident and he went back to the police station and registered the F.I.R. The earlier information is said to have been furnished by PW 4 and PW 4 was asked about it. He denied the same. No attempt was made on behalf of the insurer to confront PW 4 with his earlier statement recorded by the police. Going by the contents of the F.I.R. version regarding Munnibai being injured in the motor vehicle accident is true and the version about Munnibai being injured in the mine accident is not true. The claimants' case was supported by Munnibai's mother, PW 5 and co-workers PWs 2 and 4. Their statements show that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck. Evidence given by doctor, PW 3, who conducted autopsy is very significant in this regard. Most of the injuries are described having been caused by dragging or by being run over. These injuries could be caused only due to motor vehicle accident and not by fall of stone on the head. The insurer made no attempt to cause production of original or certified copy of the F.I.R. or even to prove it. In the circumstances, finding of the Tribunal does not call for any interference. 5. These injuries could be caused only due to motor vehicle accident and not by fall of stone on the head. The insurer made no attempt to cause production of original or certified copy of the F.I.R. or even to prove it. In the circumstances, finding of the Tribunal does not call for any interference. 5. It is next contended that under the conditions of policy, risk in regard to only four labourers was undertaken and five labourers were travelling. It is not that the four labourers other than Munnibai were injured. Certified copy of the policy was not produced. Only a photostat copy of the policy was produced. There was no attempt to mark it or get it proved. Even accepting this copy, it covers the risk in regard to four labourers and since Munnibai was the only labourer injured, risk in relation to her is covered by the policy. 6. The next contention relates to the quantification. There is no dispute that Munnibai, aged 20 years, was working as a labourer in the mines and earning Rs. 20 per day. She was not getting work during rainy season and other off-seasons, nevertheless the Tribunal assessed her monthly income at Rs. 600/- which was certainly unjustified. The Tribunal deducted Rs. 150 out of the monthly income of Rs. 600/-towards the expenses of Munnibai and treated Rs. 450/- as dependency and adopted multiplier of 16 and arrived at the amount of compensation of Rs. 57,600/-. This calculation is wrong. The correct amount would be Rs. 86,400/-. The Tribunal also awarded Rs. 3,000/- towards funeral and other expenses. 7. I have indicated that the Tribunal was not justified in determining the average income of Rs. 600/- per month, ignoring the fact that during certain seasons Munnibai was not getting any work. Therefore, the average income has to be taken to be Rs. 300/- to Rs. 400/- per month. Her mother, PW 5, is also a labourer earning separately. Her father, PW 1, did not state that he was working or not but claimed that his daughter was paying her wages and household expenses were being met out of the daughter's wages. This could not be correct, particularly since the mother was also earning wages and in the ordinary course, the father is also expected to work. Further, his evidence shows that he was trying to arrange for the marriage of the daughter. This could not be correct, particularly since the mother was also earning wages and in the ordinary course, the father is also expected to work. Further, his evidence shows that he was trying to arrange for the marriage of the daughter. If she had been married, the question of the parents being dependent financially would not have arisen. The Tribunal did not make any award for loss of love and affection. Having regard to all these circumstances, grant of Rs. 57,600/- on the basis of dependency appears to be excessive. More reasonable amount would be about Rs. 25,000/-. 8. Learned counsel for the claimants, on the basis of two decisions of this court, contended that the claimants are entitled to at least Rs. 50,000/- in view of the provisions in the Amending Act, 1994, raising the quantum of 'no fault liability' to Rs. 50,000/-. It is not contended that the amendment has retrospective effect. One of the decisions relied on is Khashti Devi v. Amar Nath, 1994 ACJ 873 (MP). The accident in that case took place in 1977, i.e., before 1988 Act. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 6,000/-. This court referred to Section 92-A of the 1939 Act providing no fault liability of Rs. 15,000/-, provisions of Section 140 of 1988 Act providing for Rs. 25,000/- and observed that these two amounts (Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 25,000/-) represent the minimum compensation for loss of human life in the estimate of Parliament and the legislative norm should serve as a guideline for the courts while assessing the amount of compensation. The court specifically left open the question whether Section 92-A or Section 140 is retrospective in operation or not. The next decision is the one in M.A. No. 142 of 1989. The accident in that case took place in 1984. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 28,000/- as compensation including Rs. 2,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs. 1,000/- for loss of love and affection. The court noticed that under the 1994 Amendment, no fault liability was fixed at Rs. 50,000/-, that the case in hand would be governed by the 1939 Act which provided for no fault liability to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- and observed that the provision in the 1994 Amendment Act can be taken as an aid for computing compensation based on no fault liability. 50,000/-, that the case in hand would be governed by the 1939 Act which provided for no fault liability to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- and observed that the provision in the 1994 Amendment Act can be taken as an aid for computing compensation based on no fault liability. But the court did not award any amount on that basis but went into various heads and determined the correct compensation and arrived at a total of Rs. 60,600/-. These decisions, in my opinion, do not lay down the dictum that in every pending case, irrespective of the facts and circumstances, the court is bound to grant Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on the basis of no fault liability. 9. The Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. It is said that the Supreme Court in certain cases has awarded interest from back date. That may be so, but the learned counsel for the claimants has not been able to place before me any decision of the Supreme Court which lays down the law in the matter of award of rate of interest. The rate of interest has to be determined on the consideration of facts and circumstances, namely, year in which the accident took place, the year in which the award is made, the rate of interest at the relevant time, etc. Having regard to all these circumstances, the interest above 12 per cent per annum in regard to claim based on an accident which took place in 1989 appears to be excessive. 10. In the result, the impugned award is modified by reducing the amount of compensation from Rs. 60,600/- to Rs. 28,000/- and the rate of interest from 15 per cent per annum to 12 per cent per annum. Parties to bear their own costs.