JUDGMENT 1. - By agreement of the parties, final arguments of appeal were heard. 1. The appeal was basically filed on the ground that when an application is filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is required that claimant has to prove fault of the motor vehicle involved in the accident. Counsel for the respondents states that this is a misplaced argument in view of provisions of sub-rule (2) of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. This is not the requirement and the claim is to be decreed on no fault liability, therefore, this point of the appellant is held against the appellant. 2. The second point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that claim has been awarded in excess to the Schedule provided under the Act. According to the learned counsel for the appellant that when monthly income is to be taken as notional income as per Note 6, then the compensation has to be in between the compensation given in Schedule, Rs. 12,000/- to Rs. 18,000/-, which is 2.40 lacs and 3.60 Lacs. The mesne comes out to be Rs. 3 lacs. Out of this Rs. 3 lacs one third is to be deducted and that makes the compensation to Rs. 2 lacs. Over and above, this Rs. 2 lacs, general damages to the extent of Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 2,500/- for loss of estate have to be added. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to controvert the calculations arrived at by the learned counsel for the appellant and therefore, it emerges out that claimants were entitled to a compensation of Rs. 2,04,500/-. To that extent, award of the learned Tribunal is amended. In the facts and circumstances, since trial Court has not awarded interest and no cross-objection has been filed, I deem it proper to award interest at the rate of 6% on the award amount i.e. Rs. 2,04,500/- in exercise of powers under Order 41, Rule 33 CPC to the claimants from the date of filing of the claim petition.With these observations, the appeal is partly allowed.Appeal partly allowed. *******