JUDGMENT 1. - Since all these appeals arise out of an accident that occurred on 21- 11-1993 and the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short 'M.A.C.T.'), Sojat disposed of all the four claim petitions by a common order, I propose to dispose of all these appeals together by this judgment. 2. On 21-11-1993, Dharmendra Sharma, Jitendra Sharma, Ruchi Sharma, Vinay Rai, Smt. Priyanka Rai, Himanshu and Mithu Lai were proceeding in a Maruti Van RJT 0680 from Ajmer to Jodhpur. The said vehicle was being driven by Vinay Rai. When the Maruti Van reached near Sandra, the Roadways Bus No. RJP 2214 came from Jodhpur side and was proceeding towards Beawar. The above Bus was being driven by Kishan Singh S/o Sobhag Singh, driver, Vinay Rai, driver, observed that the Roadways Bus was coming at a very high speed. He, therefore, took the Maruti Van-on his left side on the kacha road in order to avoid any accident. However, the Bus continued to come at the same speed. The driver of the Bus drove the said Bus rashly and negligently and hit the standing Maruti Car very violently as a result of which the whole Maruti Van was damaged and broker. Three of the occupants namely Vinay Rai, Jitendra Sharma and Ruchi Sharma died on the spot. Other two occupants namely Dharmendra Sharma and Mithu Lal got injured. The F.I.R. of this fatal accident was lodged at the Police Station, Sandra by Dharmendra Kumar on the same day. The Police registered a case under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A, Indian Penal Code. It may also be stated that after investigation, a challan was filed against the bus driver Kishan Singh. The post mortem on the dead bodies of the above three persons was conducted and post mortem reports were prepared. There is no dispute that the above three persons died as a result of injuries sustained in the above accident. The Maruti Van was insured with the United India Insurance Company. While investigating the criminal case against Kishan Singh, the Investigating Officer inspected the site and prepared the site plan Ex. 7. Photographs of both the vehicles were taken from different angles, which are Exs. 35 to 46. 3. The Claim Petitions No. 86/94, 78/94, 87/94 and 60194 were filed by the claimants, which relate to the present Appeals Nos. 312/ 96, 313/96, 314/96 and 362/96 respectively. 4. 7. Photographs of both the vehicles were taken from different angles, which are Exs. 35 to 46. 3. The Claim Petitions No. 86/94, 78/94, 87/94 and 60194 were filed by the claimants, which relate to the present Appeals Nos. 312/ 96, 313/96, 314/96 and 362/96 respectively. 4. In all the four Claim Petitions, the claimants alleged that the above fatal accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent act of the driver Kishan Singh in driving the above Roadways Bus. The Maruti Van was proceeding at a very moderate speed. The driver of Maruti Van Shri Mithu Lai was very vigilant and when he saw the Roadways Bus coming at a very high speed, he apprehended some untoward accident and took the Maruti Van aside on the kacha road. However, the Bus Driver continued to proceed in the same rash and negligent manner and it dashed against the above Maruti Van. The collision was so violent that the whole Maruti Van was reduced to a junk and Vinay Rai, Jitendra Sharma and Ruchi Sharma sustained injuries, which proved fatal. They died on the spot. Dharmendra Sharma and Mithu Lal also sustained injuries. 5. A reply was filed in all the four Claim Petitions by the appellant and the Insurance Company. The appellant non-petitioner R.S.R.T.C. denied that the above bus was being driven by Kishan Singh rashly and negligently. According to the appellant, the driver of the Maruti Van was negligent in driving the above vehicle. It was over crowded in the sense that six persons besides the driver were occupying the Maruti Van, which was beyond the sitting capacity of the vehicle. On account of this fact, the driver of the Maruti Van lost his balance and he dashed against the Bus. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Judge, M.A.C.T., who tried all the four Claim Petitions together, framed issues. The learned Judge, M.A.C.T., while deciding both the issues, regarding rash and negligent act of the bus driver discussed the evidence produced by the claimants. The claimants examined Dharmendra Sharma AW 3, Mithu Lal AW 4 and Smt. Priyanka AW 5. The appellant produced Kishan Singh, Driver and Ram Singh, Conductor. All the three witnesses produced by the claimants categorically stated that the Bus was coming from the opposite direction at a very excessive speed. The claimants examined Dharmendra Sharma AW 3, Mithu Lal AW 4 and Smt. Priyanka AW 5. The appellant produced Kishan Singh, Driver and Ram Singh, Conductor. All the three witnesses produced by the claimants categorically stated that the Bus was coming from the opposite direction at a very excessive speed. Vinay Rai, driver, in order to save possible collision, took the Maruti Van aside on kacha road. However, the Bus Driver did not pay any heed and continued to drive the vehicle in the rash and negligent manner with the result that the Bus violently hit the Maruti Van and it was totally destroyed. In this connection, the learned Judge, M.A.C.T., took into consideration various photographs and concluded very categorically that it was the Bus Driver Kishan Singh , who was negligent in driving the Roadways Bus and hitting the standing Maruti Van, which was standing on the left side of the road. He, therefore, concluded that the accident occurred exclusively by the rash and negligent act of Kishan Singh, driver. 7. Now, I may briefly refer to the Appeals and Claim Petitions. 8. 1. Claim Petition No. 86/94 (ApEeal No. 312/1996) The claimants in this Claim Petition are Dharmendra Sharma, father (50 years) and Smt. Munni Rani, mother (48 years) of deceased Jitendra Sharma. According to the claimants, Jitendra Sharma was aged 21 years at the time of the accident. He was very intelligent and promising boy. He passed B.Com. in the year 1993 and excelled in various extra curricular activities. He was also given a Certificate of Merit by Ministry of Human Resources and Development (Department of Education), Govt. of India, and also appeared in Entrance Examination of the Chartered Accountants of India and was also working with M/s. Suncity Tours and Travels as a Receptionist and earning a sum of Rs. 2500/- per month. It was also averred that deceased Jitendra Sharma had obtained a job overseas with M/s. Al Khair Perfumery at Jeddah in Saudi Arabia as a Sales Representative at a monthly salary of one thousand six hundred Saudi Riyals, equivalent to Rs. 16000/- of Indian currency. The appointment letter is Ex. 28-A. However unfortunately, be fore he could join the coveted assignment, he lost his life. A claim of Rs. 20,51,000/- was made. Both the parties led their evidence. 16000/- of Indian currency. The appointment letter is Ex. 28-A. However unfortunately, be fore he could join the coveted assignment, he lost his life. A claim of Rs. 20,51,000/- was made. Both the parties led their evidence. The learned Judge, M.A.C.T., after examining the evidence and the documents and taking into consideration the overseas assignment, estimated the monthly income of deceased Jitendra Sharma at Rs. 16,000/- and felt that he would have spent twenty percent of the above estimation on his parents and his parents would have got the above dependency allowance for a period of about twenty years. The Tribunal, therefore, computed the above dependency allowance for a period of twenty years and arrived at Rs. 7,20,800/-. However, he did not pass the award in respect of the above computed amount in view of the directions given in the General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas, 994 Acc CJ 1 . The learned Judge observed that in the above case, the Supreme Court has stated that the compensation awarded should be equivalent to the amount of the interest calculated at the rate of 12% per annum. He, therefore, computed the amount at Rs. 3,20,000/-. He also allowed a sum of Rs. one thousand for transporting the dead body by taxi, Rs. 50,000/- on account of loss of love and affection and Rs. 25,000/- as funeral expenses. In all, a claim for Rs. 3,96,000/- was allowed to the claimants and against the appellants. 9. 2. Petition No. 78/94 (ApPeal No. 313/1996):: The claim petition was in respect of deceased Vinay Rai and was filed by his father Shri Ashok Rai, mother Smt. Rani Rai, wife Priyanka Rai and son Mayank Rai. A total claim of Rs. 54,60,000/- was made. The learned Judge, M.A.C.T. relying on the statement of Priyanka, AW 5 and the certificate of pay, Ex. 35, felt that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 4400/- p.m. The age of the deceased was 25 years at the time of the accident. It was the beginning of his career and in future, he could have earned sum of Rs. eight thousand per month. In that case he would have spent a sum of Rs. 26,000/- on himself and Rs. 5400/- on the claimants. 4400/- p.m. The age of the deceased was 25 years at the time of the accident. It was the beginning of his career and in future, he could have earned sum of Rs. eight thousand per month. In that case he would have spent a sum of Rs. 26,000/- on himself and Rs. 5400/- on the claimants. The learned Judge held that deceased would have spent a sum equivalent to ten percent each on his father and mother out of Rupees 5400/-. The learned Judge, therefore, allowed a sum of Rs. 1, 94,400/- each to father Shri Ashok Rai and mother Smt. Rani Rai but lim iced the above claim to Rs. 54000/- each equivalent to twelve percent interest on the basis of the instructions given in Susamma Thomas's case (supra). The learned Judge also felt that deceased would have spent eight percent of the dependency on his wife and children. The learned Judge, therefore, computed the amount by multiplying 4320 x 12x40 and determined the compensation at Rs. 20,73,600/- but again limited the same in view of Sushma Thomas's case (supra) to Rs. 4,30,000/-. He also allowed a sum of Rs. one lac as a consortium, Rs. 50,000/- for the loss of love and affection and Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental agony. The learned Judge further held that the above Maruti Van was totally destroyed as a result of the above accident. Relying on the statement of Priyanka Rai, AW 5, the learned Judge assessed the damages on account of loss of the above vehicle to Rs. 1,60,000/-. Hence a total claim of Rs. 8,98,000/- was awarded to the claimants. 10. 3. Claim Petition No. 87/94 (ApPeal No. 314/1996): The Claim Petition was in respect of deceased Ruchi Sharma. The claimants are Manohar Nath (father), Dharmendra Sharma (father-in-law) and Smt. Munni Rani Sharma (mother-in-law). A total claim of Rupees 9,51,000/- had been made. The learned Judge after appreciating the evidence produced by the parties, held that Mst. Ruchi Sharma was earning a sum of Rs. 2000/- p.m. by doing typing work. She was 21 years at the time of the accident. She would have spent a sum of Rs. 700/- on herself and remaining amount on her father-in-law, mother-in-law and father. He further held that the above claimants would have got the above allowance for a period of about twenty years. 2000/- p.m. by doing typing work. She was 21 years at the time of the accident. She would have spent a sum of Rs. 700/- on herself and remaining amount on her father-in-law, mother-in-law and father. He further held that the above claimants would have got the above allowance for a period of about twenty years. The claim computed in the above manner came to Rs. 4,12,000/- but he confined the same to Rs. 1,30,000/- in accordance with Susamma Thomas's case (supra). 11. 4. Claim Petition No. 60/94 (ApPeal No. 362/1996): The claim was field by injured Mithulal, who got injured, as a result of the above accident. He made a claim for Rs. 3,74,200/-. The learned Judge, M.A.C.T. held that it was proved that Mithulal got injured and sustained injuries on his head, shoulder, leg and lungs. The injured spent a sum of Rs. thirty thousand on medicines but since the State Govt. reimbursed the medical expenses, nothing was allowed under this head. The injured also remained on leave from 22-11-1993 to 29-1- 994 as an indoor patient. He also underwent surgery. A sum of Rs. 6,700/- was allowed to him, equivalent to the pay of the above period. A sum of Rs. 30,000/- was allowed for mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- for nutritive diet and other expenses and Rs. 800/- as against miscellaneous expenses. Thus, a total award of Rs. fifty thousand was passed in favour of the above claimant. 12. The appellants have field all these four appeals against the above joint Award passed by the learned Judge, M.A.C.T., Sojat on 19th January, 1996.13. I have heard S/Shri Vivek Gupta learned counsel for the appellants, H.R. Panwar for the claimants and G.K. Vyas for the Insurance Company.14. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently challenged the finding of the Tribunal with regard to issues Nos. 1 and 2 regarding the alleged negligence of the driver Kishan Singh. Learned counsel has submitted that while deciding these two issues, the learned Tribunal totally ignored the evidence produced by the appellant. The conclusion arrived at is, therefore, totally erroneous and not sustainable in law. Kishan Singh, NAW 1, who was driving the bus of the appellant at the relevant time has categorically stated that Maruti Van was overcrowded with passengers and it was coming at a very high speed and was proceeding in a zig zagway. The conclusion arrived at is, therefore, totally erroneous and not sustainable in law. Kishan Singh, NAW 1, who was driving the bus of the appellant at the relevant time has categorically stated that Maruti Van was overcrowded with passengers and it was coming at a very high speed and was proceeding in a zig zagway. He , therefore, stopped the bus on his side so that the Maruti Van could pass but it collided with the bus. It was, therefore, the fault of the driver of the Maruti Van that was responsible for the fatal accident. Learned counsel has also submitted that there is evidence to the effect that Maruti Van was carrying marble stone samples in it. On account of this fact, driver Mithulal lost control of the vehicle. Learned counsel has submitted that at any rate, it was a case of contributory negligence. In that case, the learned Tribunal ought to have made the Insurance Company of the Maruti Van, Maruti owner and the appellant responsible and the liability ought to have been apportioned according to the proportion of the negligence of the drivers of the two vehicles. 15. Learned counsel for the claimants and the Insurance Company supported the finding of the Tribunal on issues Nos. 1 and 2.16. I have seen the evidence produced by the parties. I have also gone through the discussion of evidence made by the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal discussed the testimony of three material witnesses produced by the claimants namely AW 3 Dharmendra Kumar Sharma. AW 4 Mithulal and AW 5 Priyanka. All these witnesses eye witnessed the occurrence. They have stated that Mithulal was driving the Maruti Van at a moderate speed. When he saw the bus coming from the opposite direction at a high speed. Mithulal took precaution and took his vehicle on the extreme left side of the road and stopped the vehicle. Kishan Singh was driving the bus at a very high speed and Maruti Van could not escape even after taking the above precaution. The bus came and hit the Maruti Van as a result of which the Maruti Van was totally destroyed and three passengers lost their lives and two were injured. I have gone through the statements of these witnesses and I find their statements to be reliable and trustworthy. The bus came and hit the Maruti Van as a result of which the Maruti Van was totally destroyed and three passengers lost their lives and two were injured. I have gone through the statements of these witnesses and I find their statements to be reliable and trustworthy. There is no evidence on the record that the Maruti Van was carrying samples of marble stone. Learned Tribunal has also referred to the photographs of the site map. From a perusal of the above documents, it becomes very clear that the Maruti Van was standing on the extreme left side of the road. The bus came on a wrong side to the right of the road and dashed against the Maruti Van. The photographs clearly prove this fact, which is also corroborated by the site plan. Hence, I do not find anything wrong in the decision arrived at by the Tribunal with regard to issues Nos. 1 and 2.17. Having disposed of the first argument of the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to issues Nos. 1 and 2, now I come to the quantum damages awarded by the Tribunal. I will deal with each case separately. Before I deal with the Claim Petitions relating to these appeals, I would like to state that the Apex Court in Susamma Thomas's case (supra), considered the concept of quantum of compensation, concept of multiplier and determination of quantum of compensation in Motor Accident Claim Cases and it was held that the multiplier method is the accepted method of ensuring a just compensation, which will make for uniformity and certainty of the awards, departure from which can only be justified in rare and extraordinary circumstances and very exceptional cases. It was further held that determination of compensation on the basis of entire future earnings for over the period of lost life expectancy and then making deduction for uncertainties of life is unscientific and impermissible. It was also observed in the above case that it will not be inappropriate to take a reasonably liberal view of the prospects of the future and in estimating the gross income, it will be unreasonable to estimate the loss of dependency on the present actual income. In the above case, the deceased was found to be earning Rs. 1032/- p.m. Taking the above factors into consideration, the Apex Court made a higher estimate of monthly income at Rs. In the above case, the deceased was found to be earning Rs. 1032/- p.m. Taking the above factors into consideration, the Apex Court made a higher estimate of monthly income at Rs. two thousand as the gross income. Then his personal living expenses were deducted. It was observed that the quantum of which again depends on various factors such as whether the style of living was Spartan or Bohemian. It was observed that in the absence of evidence, it was not unusual to deduct one third of the gross income towards the personal living expenses and treat the balance as the amount likely to have been spent on the members of the family and the dependents. This loss of dependency, should capitalise with the appropriate multiplier.18. After Susamma Thomas's case ( AIR 1994 SC 1631 (supra), the Apex Court in U. P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra, 1996 Acc CJ 831 , allowed the multiplier not exceeding 18 in computing compensation in motor accident claim cases.19. Now I proceed to scan the quantum of damages determined by the learned Tribunal. 20. 1. Appeal No. 312/1996 (Claim Petition No. 86/1994 It may be stated that in this case, the claim petition was filed by father Dharmendra Sharma, 50 years and mother Smt. Munni Rani, 48 years on account of death of their son Jitendra Sharma, 21 years. The learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,96,000/- to the claimants. There is no dispute that the age of the deceased at the time of death was 21 years. There is also evidence regarding the fact that the deceased was a brilliant boy and was having excellent record in extra curricular activities. It is alleged that he was earning a sum of Rs. 2,500/- p.m. from a job as Receptionist in M/s. Suncity Tours and Travels. Rajendra Mehta, a partner in the above Firm has stated that Jitendra Sharma was working as Receptionist in their Firm and was earning a monthly salary of Rs. 2,500/- p.m. He worked from April, 1993 to Nov. 1993. He also proved the salary certificate Ex. 1. Dharmendra Sharma AW 3, has also been examined. He has proved the income of the deceased as also the testimonial of his deceased son. There is no rebuttal evidence from the side of the appellant . 2,500/- p.m. He worked from April, 1993 to Nov. 1993. He also proved the salary certificate Ex. 1. Dharmendra Sharma AW 3, has also been examined. He has proved the income of the deceased as also the testimonial of his deceased son. There is no rebuttal evidence from the side of the appellant . I, therefore, agree with the finding of the learned Tribunal that the deceased was earning As, 2,500/- p.m. at the time of his death. Looking to the promising career and age evidence, by the testimonials produced by the claimants, it will not be unreasonable to estimate the loss of dependency on a bit higher scale. I estimate the income at Rs. 3000/- p.m. The annual income, thus, comes to Rs. 36,000/-. After making the notional deduction of the personal expenses of the deceased equivalent to one third, the dependency comes to Rs. 24,000/- per year. While computing compensation in a case where the claimants are only parents, the age of the parents becomes relevant as has been held in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation's case (1996 Acc CJ 831) (supra). In the instant case, the age of the deceased's father was 50 years and that of mother 48 years. Taking their age into consideration, I am of the opinion that multiplier of nine will be a reasonable multiplier. After applying the above multiplier, the compensation comes to Rs. 2,16,000/-. I also allow the expenses of Rs. 1000/- incurred by the parents in transporting the dead body, Rupees 2000/- as funeral expenses and Rs. 5000/- for the loss of love and affection. The total compensation therefore, comes to Rupees 2,24,000/-. Regarding the claim in respect of the possible foreign assignment which the deceased could have joined, had he remained alive, it may be stated that such a contingency cannot be taken into account as has been held in Susamma Thomas's case (supra). Hence I am not taking the above foreign assignment into consideration. I have already enhanced the income taking into account the promising and bright career of the deceased. 21. 2. Appeal No. 313/1996 (Claim Petition No. 78/1994) ; The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 8, 98,000/- to the claimants. It may be stated that the age of the deceased Vinay Rai was about 22 years at the time of death. 21. 2. Appeal No. 313/1996 (Claim Petition No. 78/1994) ; The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 8, 98,000/- to the claimants. It may be stated that the age of the deceased Vinay Rai was about 22 years at the time of death. The claimants are his father Ashok Rai, mother Smt. Rani Rai, wife Priyanka and son Mayank Rai. Priyanka wife of deceased has stated that at the time of death, her husband was 21 years and was serving in 'Rajasthan Khoj Khabar', a daily newspaper, on commission basis and his monthly income was Rupees 4400/-. Her husband also wanted to do his private business 'Publication and Advertising' in which he could have earned a sum of As. ten thousand per month. Priyanka, AW 5, has also filed the certificate of income Ex. 35. According to the certificate, the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 4400/-. pm. on commission basis. Learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the above document on the ground that it has not been proved by any person of the above Company. Hence, it cannot be held to have been proved in favour of the claimants. Learned counsel for the appellants has, however, placed reliance on Union of India v. Kusum Sharma, 1989 Acc CJ 260 (J & K) and Delhi Transport Corporation v. T. Radha, 1993 Acc CJ 276 (Delhi), for the proposition that when such evidence remains unrebutted, the same should be accepted by the Court. 22. I have scrutinised the evidence and the certificate produced by the claimants. it may be stated that the certificate is in respect of the Commission, which the deceased used to earn while serving in the above Company. The income of commission always varies. Inf the instant case, it will not be reasonable to accept the monthly income of the deceased as fixed one. However, it may be stated that there is no effective rebuttal from the side of the appellants. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I reasonably assess monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 3500/- p.m. After making deduction of notional expenses of the deceased equivalent to one third, annual dependency comes to Rs. 28,000/-. I am inclined to allow the maximum multiplier of 18. After applying the multiplier of 18, the compensation comes to Rs. 5,04,000/-. I also allow a sum of Rs. 3500/- p.m. After making deduction of notional expenses of the deceased equivalent to one third, annual dependency comes to Rs. 28,000/-. I am inclined to allow the maximum multiplier of 18. After applying the multiplier of 18, the compensation comes to Rs. 5,04,000/-. I also allow a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as consortium and loss of love and affection. I further allow a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- on account of total destruction of the Maruti Van. The Maruti Van was purchased in the year 1993 and it stands in the name of Smt. Rani Rai. I disallow as sum of Rs. 10,000/- on account of depreciation and use of the said vehicle.23. 3. Appeal No. 314/1996 (Claim Petition No. 87 /94): The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/-. In this claim petition, the deceased is Mrs. Ruchi Sharma aged 21 years. The claim petition has been filed by her father-in-law Dharmendra Sharma, mother-in-law Mrs. Munni Rani and father Manoher Nath. It may be stated that after the marriage of a Hindu woman, the father cannot be treated to be a claimant. Hence, it was erroneous on the part of the learned Tribunal to have included father Manohar Nath as claimant in the above claim petition. The claim can only be awarded to Dharmendra Sharma and Mrs. Munni Rani, father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively. According to the learned Tribunal, she was earning a sum of Rs. 2,000/- p.m. on account of typing work and tuitions. There can be no reasonable estimate of her income on these two counts. It can only be reasonably assessed. I assess her dependency at Rs. 1,000/- p.m. This will also include the household services rendered by her to her in laws. Looking to the age of her father-in-law and mother-in-law, the multiplier of ten would be appropriate. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 1, 20,000/-. 24. 4. Appeal No. 362/1996 (Claim Petition No. 60/94): The claim petition was filed by Mithulal, who was injured in the accident. Although his injury certificate Ex. 24 does not indicate the internal injuries sustained by him but it is on record that he remained as an indoor patient in the hospital for more than two months. The documents Exs. 24, 25/1 and 26/1 show that he also took surgical treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. Although his injury certificate Ex. 24 does not indicate the internal injuries sustained by him but it is on record that he remained as an indoor patient in the hospital for more than two months. The documents Exs. 24, 25/1 and 26/1 show that he also took surgical treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2500/- for loss of salary to the wife of the claimant who remained with the claimant in the hospital for his service. The claimant was also awarded a sum of Rs. 6700/- equivalent to the salary of two months twelve days, which was the leave period of the claimant. I treat both the expenses as reasonable. Regarding the injuries, only a reasonable estimate can be made. It is also pertinent to state that the 'table', given in the 'schedule' of the new Motor Vehicles Act, can be taken into account. As has been held in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation's case (1996 Acc CJ 831) (supra), I estimate the damages on this count at Rs. 20,000/-. Other items ara not admissible. 25. While assessing the above quantum of damages, I have not allowed the compensation determined by the learned Tribunal on account of mental and physical agony and other sundry items. It appears that the learned Judge, M.A.C.T. was not conversant with the items regarding which compensation can be awarded. In assessing the compensation, he did not adopt any set of principles. The result was that he allowed exorbitant compensation, not warranted by the law. I made an endeavour to assess the correct compensation in each case in these appeals. The learned Tribunal has also awarded interest at the rate of fifteen percent per annum, which is excessive. The reasonable rate of interest normally in such cases is twelve percent per annum.26. Regarding the mode of payment of the above compensation, I may refer to Susamma Thomas's case (supra) in which the Apex Court approved the judgment of Muljibhai Ajarambhai Harijan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 1983 Acc CJ 57. (i) The Claims Tribunal should, in the case of minors, invariably order the amount of compensation awarded to the minor be invested in long term fixed deposits at least till the date of the minor attaining majority. Ltd., 1983 Acc CJ 57. (i) The Claims Tribunal should, in the case of minors, invariably order the amount of compensation awarded to the minor be 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, rickshaw, etc., to earn a livinn, 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 rogue to withdraw money; (iii) In the case of semi-literate persons the Tribunal should ordinarily resort to the procedure set out in (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 any 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 it 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 so 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 term fixed deposits is made, it should be on condition that the bank 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." 27. I have also gone through the guidelines given in the above case and I will try to adhere to it.28. For the above reasons, I accept the appeals in part and the compensation is reduced/modified as under: 1. Appeal No. 312/1996: Rs. 2,24,000/- 2. Appeal No. 313/1996: Rs. 5,19,000/- + Rs. 1,50,000/- cost of van 3. Appeal No. 314/1996: Rs. 1 20,000/- 4. Appeal No. 362/1996: Rs. 29,200/- 29. The claimants shall also be entitled to get simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition till realisation. Appeal No. 312/1996: Rs. 2,24,000/- 2. Appeal No. 313/1996: Rs. 5,19,000/- + Rs. 1,50,000/- cost of van 3. Appeal No. 314/1996: Rs. 1 20,000/- 4. Appeal No. 362/1996: Rs. 29,200/- 29. The claimants shall also be entitled to get simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition till realisation. Regarding the mode of payment, I give directions as follows :30. 1. Appeal No. 312/1996 (Claim Petition No. 86/941: Both the claimants shall share compensation in equal parts. Both of them may be paid Rs. twenty five thousand each in cash immediately. For the remaining amount, Fixed Deposits for a period of six months, one year and two years may be taken from any scheduled Bank in the name of the claimants. The F. Ds. shall be of equal amounts but the last F. D. will also include the amount of interest. 31. 2. Appeal No. 313/1996 (Claim Petition No. 78/94) :The claim is apportioned amongst the claimants as follows : 1. Shri Ashok Rai (father) : Rs,. 1,00,000/- 2. Smt. Rani Rai (mother) : Rs,. 1,00,000/- 3. Priyanka Rai (wife) : Rs,. 2,00,000/- 4. Mayank Rai (son) : Rs,. 1,19,000/-' 32. Out of the above amount, Shri Ashok Rai and Smt. Rani Rai may be paid Rs. 25,000/- each in cash immediately. Three Fixed Deposits for Rs. 25,000/- each may be taken in the name of Shri Ashok Rai and Smt. Rani Rai from a scheduled Bank for a period of six months one year and two years respectively. Priyanka Rai may be paid Rs. 25,000/- in cash immediately and the remaining amount may be invested in three Fixed Deposits of Rs. 25,000/-, Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- for a period of six months, one year and two years respectively, in any scheduled Bank. The whole amount of Rs. 1,19,000/-, plus interest thereon, awarded to Mayank will be invested in F. D. Scheme of a scheduled Bank. The said F. D. may be renewed after expiry and will continue till he attains majority. Priyanka will act as his guardian. The amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-, awarded against the damages on account of destruction of the Maruti Van, be paid to Smt. Rani Rai immediately.33. Appeal No. 314/1996 (Claim Petition No. 87/94): The claimants Dharmendra Sharma and Smt. Munni Rani may be paid Rs. 25,000/- each in cash immediately. Priyanka will act as his guardian. The amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-, awarded against the damages on account of destruction of the Maruti Van, be paid to Smt. Rani Rai immediately.33. Appeal No. 314/1996 (Claim Petition No. 87/94): The claimants Dharmendra Sharma and Smt. Munni Rani may be paid Rs. 25,000/- each in cash immediately. The remaining amount of Rs. 35,000/- plus half interest may be invested in F. D. Scheme for a period of one year for each claimant from a scheduled Bank. 34. Appeal No. 362/1996 (Claim Petition No. 60 94 : The compensation amount may be paid to the claimant in cash immediately. 35. The Fixed Deposit Receipts, which are taken from a scheduled Bank, will carry a note that amount due shall not be paid till maturity but the amount may be paid prematurely on the orders of the learned Judge of the Tribunal.Order accordingly. *******