S. R. VENKATESHA MURTHY, J. ( 1 ) IN an accident that took place on 21. 1. 1987 involving a TVS moped and the lorry MYE 4818, the rider of the TVS Moped died and the pillion rider sustained grievous injuries. MVC 112 of 1987 and MVC 113 of 1987 were the petitions filed by the legal representatives of the deceased rider of the TVS and the pillion rider respectively for compensation. The Tribunal held that the accident was due to the negligence of both the driver of the lorry and the rider of the TVS moped and quantified the negligence as 30 percent by the deceased driver of the moped and 30 percent by the driver of the lorry. Consequently, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 67,900/ - with interest thereon at 12 percent per annum in MVC 112 of 1987 and Rs. 66,500/ with interest thereon at 12 percent per annum in mvc 113 of 1997. ( 2 ) MFA 1593 of 1991 is by the Insurance Company and the owner of the lorry seeking to challenge the award of interest at 12 percent per annum. MFA 2320 of 1990 is by the legal representatives of the deceased rider of the TVS challenging the quantification of negligence and for enhancement of the compensation awarded. ( 3 ) MFA 2464 of 1991 is by the owner and insurer of the lorry challenging the award of interest, at 12 percent per annum in MVC 113 of 1987. MFA 2332 of 1990 is by the claimant in MVC 113 of 1987 for enhancement of compensation. ( 4 ) SO far as the claim of the owner and the insurer in MFA 1593/1991 and MFA 2464 of 1991 are concerned, the appeal is restricted to the interest component of the award. In the case reported in karnataka POWER CORPORATION vs GEETHA1 this Court examined in depth the interest component of an award and has held that normally the rate of interest at Rs. 6% per annum should be so far as the general damages are concerned. Indeed, the general damages component of the compensation awarded being so farge in proportion to the special damages component, the Tribunal could not have awarded interest at 12 percent per annum without adequate reasons. Indeed, no reasons are given as to why interest at 12 percent was being awarded. 4. Indeed, the general damages component of the compensation awarded being so farge in proportion to the special damages component, the Tribunal could not have awarded interest at 12 percent per annum without adequate reasons. Indeed, no reasons are given as to why interest at 12 percent was being awarded. 4. So far as MFA 2464 of 1991 is concerned, it was sought to be contended that the negligence of the rider should have been taken into consideration in arriving at the compensation payable to the pillion rider. It is needless to state that this contention is untenable for the pillion rider could not have io any extent contributed to the accident in question. Consequently MFA 1593 of 1991 and MFA 2464 of 1991 deserves to be allowed to the extent of reducing the rate of interest on the compensation from 12 percent to 6 percent only. ( 5 ) MFA 2320 of 1990 is by the legal representatives of the deceased rider of the TVS. It is their case that the Tribunal could not have determined the negligence of the deceased at 30 percent. When there was a head on collision and no evidence had been placed on behalf of the, petitioner to show that the accident was exclusively due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry MYE 4818, the Tribunal has taken into consideration all the circumstances available and quantified the negligence at 30 percent and the same is not liable to be disturbed as there is no material to modify the finding recording by the Tribunal. ( 6 ) THE other grievance of the appellants is that the quantification of loss of dependency by the Tribunal is incorrect and the Tribunal ought to have held that the income of the deceased was much more than what was determined by the Tribunal. Having gone through the finding recorded by the Tribunal, I am of the opinion that the quantification of loss,. of dependency for the petitioners at Rs. 6,000/ per annum cannot be regarded as unreasonable. Having gone through the finding recorded by the Tribunal, I am of the opinion that the quantification of loss,. of dependency for the petitioners at Rs. 6,000/ per annum cannot be regarded as unreasonable. Indeed the Tribunal was adopted the multiplier of 14 in determining the loss of dependency This figure of 14, on the day the judgment was rendered, couid not be justified on the basis of the decision in H. D. BHANDARY vs MUNIYAMMA , However, as on this day, it could be justified having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in u. P. S. R. T. C. vs TRILOKCHANDAR. Therefore, the petitioners can have no grievance as to the determination of the loss of dependency. The appeal therefore has to fail. ( 7 ) IN MFA 2332 of 1990, the Tribunal found that there was alacerted wound about 2" above the patella measuring 2"x3" coupled with an abrasion; fracture of shaft of left femur and inter condular fracture of left femur. The flexion of the knee joint at the time of discharge of the petitioner was around 30 to 40 percent. Later when the doctor examined him on 14. 10. 1987, the movement of the knee joint was found to be only 30 degrees and the petitioner was limping on the left side with wasting of miscles on the left thigh. On the basis of this observation, the Tribunal found that the partial permanent disability was around 40 percent. The Tribunal fixed the compensation payable to the petitioner at Rs. 16. 500/- under various Heads. Having regard to the nature of the injury and the method adopted by the tribunal in arriving at the figure, I am of the opinion that the quantification of compensation cannot be assailed as not being in accordance with law. No case has been made out for enhancement of the compensation as now sought. Consequently, MFA 2332 of 1990 has to fail. MFA 2332 of 1990 and MFA 2320 of 1990 are dismissed. MFA 1593 of 1991 and MFA 2464 of 1991 are allowed to the extend of rate of interest from 12 percent to 6 percent only. The balance of compensation payable by the appellants in MFA 1593 of 1991 and MFA 2464 of 1991 shall be deposited within 60 days. Having regard to the extent of success, no costs are awarded. --- *** --- .