Judgment :- P.Sathasivam, J. Against the award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Coimbatore, Cheran Transport Corporation, Coimbatore, first respondent in M.C.O.P. No.64 of 82 has filed the present appeal before this Court under Sec. 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The respondents 1 and 2 are the claimants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. For the death of the husband of the first respondent herein and father of the minor second respondent herein, they claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000 as compensation under Sec. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The brief facts leading to the filing of the claim petition areas follows: On 8. 1981 at about 9.45 a.m., after purchasing vegetables, when deceased Vasudevan was returning home on the scooter TNN.292 on the Avanashi Road, from west to east, the bus TMN.3873 belonging to the appellant herein and driven by its driver third respondent herein in a rash and negligent manner from east to west, dashed against the Scooter, thereby the rider of the Scooter sustained multiple injuries. It is contended that on the way to hospital, the deceased Vasudevan died. The entire accident happened only due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of Cheran Transport Corporation, it is further contended that one Rajagopal who was riding another Scooter MDJ.6962 behind the Scooter wherein the deceased Vasudevan was riding, has witnessed the occurrence and on seeing the fateful accident, he immediately informed the police. The first respondent herein is the wife of the deceased, aged about 39 and the second respondent herein is her minor daughter aged about 8. The deceased was 43 years old at the time of the accident and he was employed in Lakshmi Machine Works as Superintendent, earning Rs.2,270 per month. On various heads, the claimants claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000. 3. In the counter statement filed by the appellant, they have merely denied the various averments made in the claim petition. The driver, who was impleaded as the 2nd respondent, has merely adopted the counter statement of the first respondent. 4. On various heads, the claimants claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000. 3. In the counter statement filed by the appellant, they have merely denied the various averments made in the claim petition. The driver, who was impleaded as the 2nd respondent, has merely adopted the counter statement of the first respondent. 4. On the basis of the oral evidence of P. W. 1, namely, who was riding in a Scooter near the accident spot and on the basis of the First Information Report-Ex.A-1, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused only due to the rashness and negligence of the driver of the appellant Corporation and held that the claimants are entitled for compensation for the death of Vasudevan. With regard to the quantum of compensation, on the basis of the oral evidence of P.W.2, namely, wife of the deceased Vasudevan and on the basis of Ex.A-2, salary certificate, Ex.3 Salary register, Ex.A-4 Post-mortem Certificate, Ex.A-5 Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report and considering the age of the deceased as well as the claimants, income and occupation of the deceased the Tribunal passed a total award of Rs. 1,71,000 with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of petition in favour of the claimants. 5. The State-owned undertaking, namely, Cheran Transport Corporation, owner of the ill-fated vehicle, has filed the above appeal questioning both negligence and quantum aspects. Even though so many grounds have been raised in the memorandum of grounds of appeal, the counsel for the appellants has not pointed out any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. In respect of the occurrence, the evidence of eye witness, namely, P.W.I is very clear. According to him, on 8. 1981 at about 9.45 a.m. when he was proceeding in his Scooter behind the Scooter TNN.292 wherein the deceased Vasudevan was proceeding on the Avinashi Road from west to east in accordance with the rules, the bus TMN.3873 belonging to Cheran Transport Corporation driven by its driver M.Ramasamy, second respondent before the Tribunal, in a rash and negligent manner and in an uncontrollable manner, dashed against the Scooter TNN.292. He categorically deposed that the deceased was proceeding in his Scooter in the proper side and the accident was happened only due to the fault of the driver of the Cheran Transport Corporation bus. He categorically deposed that the deceased was proceeding in his Scooter in the proper side and the accident was happened only due to the fault of the driver of the Cheran Transport Corporation bus. Further, it was P.W.I who informed the nearby police station and gave a complaint Ex.A-1. The evidence of P.W.I before the court and the contents of First Information Report; i.e., Ex.A-1, are identical, more probable and acceptable. On the other hand, the driver of Cheran Transport Corporation bus was examined as R.W.I. As rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, though he was impleaded as second respondent before the Tribunal, he did not file any counter statement disputing the various averments of the claimants. Even though the appellant herein has filed a counter statement, they have not controverted any of the averments of the claimants. In other words, the Transport Corporation has generally denied the averments of the claim petition. They have not informed the court how the accident had happened and how they are not responsible for the accident. In the light of the evidence of P.W. 1, who is an eye witness to the occurrence and Ex.A-1 Fist Information Report, which is the earliest document, the Tribunal preferred to accept the claimants case and rejected the oral evidence of R.W.I as unacceptable. We accept the finding of the Tribunal, which is based on oral and documentary evidence. Hence we confirm the finding of the Tribunal on the negligence aspect. 6. Regarding the quantum of compensation, it is from seen from the evidence of the first claimant, viz., wife of the deceased Vasudevan, who was examined as P.W.2 that her husband Vasudevan was aged about 43 years at the time of accident. Ex.A-4 Postmortem certificate also supports the above version. It is the evidence of P.W.2 that her husband was employed as a Superintendent in Lakshmi Machine Works, Coimbatore and earning Rs.2,270 per month. In support of her above statement, salary certificate dated 8. 1981 issued by Lakshmi Machine-Works was marked as Ex.A-2. Likewise, the salary register for the month of April, 81 relating to the deceased Vasudevan was marked as Ex.A-3. Ex.A-2 shows that the salary of the deceased was Rs.2,270 per month. However, the salary register Ex.A-3 shows that the take home salary of the deceased was Rs.1,159.19 only. 1981 issued by Lakshmi Machine-Works was marked as Ex.A-2. Likewise, the salary register for the month of April, 81 relating to the deceased Vasudevan was marked as Ex.A-3. Ex.A-2 shows that the salary of the deceased was Rs.2,270 per month. However, the salary register Ex.A-3 shows that the take home salary of the deceased was Rs.1,159.19 only. The Tribunal after deducting a sum of Rs.259.19 towards expenses for Scooter, fixed a sum of Rs.1,300 as the contribution of the deceased to his family per month. By fixing 65 as average life span of an Indian, in the absence of any evidence regarding the retirement age of the deceased, the Tribunal applied 12 years multiplier. On the above basis, it fixed a sum of Rs.1,87,000 as probable monetary loss to the family of the deceased. From and out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.17,200 was deducted by the Tribunal towards uncertainty of life and for lump sum payment. Hence, a sum of Rs 1,70,000 was fixed towards pecuniary loss to the family of the deceased. On the basis of Ex.A-5, Motor Vehicles Inspector’s Report and Ex.A-6, quotation for spare parts relating to the Scooter, the Tribunal added a sum of Rs.1,000 towards damage to the Scooter. In the above manner, the Tribunal passed an award of Rs.1,71,000 with interest at 6 per cent from the date of petition till the date of payment as compensation for the claimant. .7. The claimants in respect of the disallowed claim, filed cross-objections in the present appeal filed by the Transport Corporation. The learned counsel for the cross-objector raised the following points for consideration: (1) The Tribunal having found that the deceased died on account of negligent driving of the driver of Transport Corporation ought to have awarded the entire compensation, namely Rs.5 lakhs in favour of the claimants. (2) The Tribunal having relied upon Ex-3 wherein it was found that the deceased was earning Rs.2,270 erred in holding that the deceased would contribute only Rs.1,300 per month to his family. (3) The Tribunal erred in fixing 12 years period as multiplier in fixing quantum of compensation. (4) The Tribunal failed to note the future prospects of the deceased in the employment and the increase in emoluments for few years till his retirement. (5) The Tribunal erred in not awarding any amount towards pain and suffering. (3) The Tribunal erred in fixing 12 years period as multiplier in fixing quantum of compensation. (4) The Tribunal failed to note the future prospects of the deceased in the employment and the increase in emoluments for few years till his retirement. (5) The Tribunal erred in not awarding any amount towards pain and suffering. (6) The Tribunal committed an error in not awarding any amount towards loss of consortium. (7) The rate of interest, viz., 6 per cent for the award amount fixed by the Tribunal is too low and contrary to the decisions of the Supreme Court. 8. In the light of the above submissions, we considered the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal. .9. Even though no one from the employer side was examined to prove Exs.A-2 and A-3, the contents of those documents were not disputed by anyone. A reading of Ex.A-2 clearly shows that the deceased was getting Rs.2,270 per month. This was spoken to by P.W.2, wife of the deceased. It is also seen from her oral evidence that her husband was qualified as Diploma in Mechanical Engineering. The oral evidence of RW.2 runs as follows: .The above oral evidence of RW.2 coupled with Exs.A-2 and A-3 supports the version of the cross-objector. 10. In respect of life expectancy the Supreme Court in the case of Jyotsna Dey v. State of Assam, 1987 A.C.J. 172, has fixed 70 years. Even though there is no specific evidence regarding the retirement age of the deceased fixation of 55 as the retirement age by the Tribunal is improper. Inasmuch as the deceased was a holder of diploma in Mechanical Engineering and aged about 43 and in the light of future prospects of the deceased in the employment and increase in emoluments in future years, apart from the amount fixed by the Tribunal, it is but proper that another 5 years period has to be considered for fixing pecuniary loss to the family of the deceased. Even if we accept the same amount fixed by the Tribunal, namely, Rs. 1,300 as probable monthly contribution of the deceased and the same is multiplied by another period of 5 years and it comes to Rs.78,000. After deducting a sum of Rs.8,000 towards lump sum payment and uncertainty, a sum of Rs.70,000 can be safely added to the monetary loss already fixed by the Tribunal. .11. 1,300 as probable monthly contribution of the deceased and the same is multiplied by another period of 5 years and it comes to Rs.78,000. After deducting a sum of Rs.8,000 towards lump sum payment and uncertainty, a sum of Rs.70,000 can be safely added to the monetary loss already fixed by the Tribunal. .11. It is the evidence of P.W. 1 who is the eye-witness of the occurrence that the accident took place at about 9.45 a.m., and the deceased only on the way to hospital died. It shows that the deceased was alive for some time with multiple injuries. Hence, the claimants are entitled to a reasonable amount of Rs.10,000 towards pain and suffering. It is the evidence of P.W.2 that the deceased was aged about 43 years at the time of the accident and she is aged about 39 years. Considering their age, it is but proper a sum of Rs.10,000 has to be awarded for the loss of consortium. Even though there is no specific claim towards loss of consortium under a separate head in the claim petition, in the interests of justice, it is open to the court to award such amount. It is a well established principle of law that failure of a person seeking remedy in a court of Law should not be held as not entitling to get his/her legal claim on the ground of failure to use specific columns while claiming compensation. 12. It was contended by the learned counsel for the cross-objector, that the rate of interest fixed by the Tribunal, viz., 6 per cent per annum is too low. Considering the delay in disposal of cases and the depreciation of money value, the court can safely awarded interest at 12 per cent from the date of claim petition till the date of actual payment. The above view has been accepted by the Apex court in various decisions in the case of Narginva B. Kamat v. Alfredo Antonio Doe Martins, 1985 A. C.J. 397 and in the case of Chameli Wati v. Delhi Municipality Corporation, 1985 A.C.J. 645. Hence, while accepting the request of the learned counsel of the cross-objector, we are granting interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of petition till the date of payment for the amount already awarded by the Tribunal as well as fixed by us in the present cross-appeal. 13. Hence, while accepting the request of the learned counsel of the cross-objector, we are granting interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of petition till the date of payment for the amount already awarded by the Tribunal as well as fixed by us in the present cross-appeal. 13. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal preferred by the Transport Corporator. No order as to costs. However, in cross-appeal we modify the award in the following manner: Apart from the award of the Tribunal namely, Rs.1,71,000, we now further enhance a sum of Rs.90,000. The appellant Transport Corporation is directed to deposit in the court below the enhanced compensation of Rs.90,000 with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of actual payment. In the enhanced amount, we fix the share of the minor as Rs.50,000 and the remaining Rs.40,000 in favour of the first claimant. We also make it clear that the claimants are entitled to get interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum for the amount fixed by the tribunal.