HARI NATH TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is the claimant's appeal arising from the judgment and award dated 26. 8. 1993 delivered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, bangalore, in MVC No. 73. of 1992 awarding only a sum of Rs. 26,000 as compensation with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and award and dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the claimant has come up in this appeal before this court. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are that on 31. 8. 1991 at 1. 30 p. m. the claimant vijaya Kuruba was travelling in the BTS bus bearing No. MEF 419 from Richmond bus-Stop to Benaganahalli. She was standing inside the bus just near the front door as the bus was fully overcrowded and when the bus was going in high speed near Mayo Hall signal, there was change of signal from green to yellow and the driver of the bus suddenly applied brakes to stop the bus, but after having a second thought he drove the bus without stopping at the same speed. The case of the claimant was that there was heavy jerk and in that process the petitioner fell out of the bus and the wheel of the bus ran over her right leg completely crushing it. The claimant became unconscious at the spot and was taken to the hospital and her right leg was amputated till the knee. The claimant's case was that her whole career has been lost due to sheer reckless driving of the bus and she has become physically wreck, mentally deranged and has to suffer utmost grief, pain and permanent disability throughout her life. According to the claimant she was not able to continue her profession or look after the family and that she had spent thousands of rupees for treatment and had to engage an attendant to look after her. The claimant's further case is that she was a B. Com (Computer) student at St. Joseph College and returning from the college by that bus. The claimant claimed Rs. 10,00,000 as compensation. ( 3 ) ON behalf of the respondent, objections were filed to the effect that the claim of compensation is highly excessive. The claimant's further case is that she was a B. Com (Computer) student at St. Joseph College and returning from the college by that bus. The claimant claimed Rs. 10,00,000 as compensation. ( 3 ) ON behalf of the respondent, objections were filed to the effect that the claim of compensation is highly excessive. The respondent, i. e. , K. S. R. T. C. denied the claimant's case that accident was due to negligence and carelessness of the driver of the bus. It was specifically contended that the accident occurred entirely due to negligence and carelessness of the claimant by attempting to catch the running bus. They denied that she was travelling inside the bus standing near the front door instead pleaded that when the bus had reached mayo Hall, red signal was shown to stop the vehicle and that the driver stopped the bus. When green signal was shown the driver started and drove the bus and suddenly the claimant came running and tried to board the running bus from the front door and in that process she slipped and fell down and sustained injuries. The respondent took the plea that the sole cause of accident or injury to the claimant is nothing but her own negligence. The evidence was led on behalf of the claimant, viz. , she examined herself as PW 1 and examined dr. K. G. Gunhaiah from Bowring Hospital as PW 2. The claimant also produced 10 exhibits. ( 4 ) THE Tribunal framed the following issues: (1) Whether the accident in question took place on account of rash and negligent driving of BTS bus No. MEF 419 and the petitioner sustained injuries? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, for what amount? (3) To what order? ( 5 ) ON the basis of the materials on record the Tribunal found that the accident was not only on account of rash and negligent driving of the BTS bus but also on account of negligence of the claimant herself and there was contributory negligence on the part of the bus driver to the extent of 25 per cent and that of claimant was 75 per cent. The Tribunal assessed and awarded a total compensation as under: ( 6 ) THE Tribunal thus assessed the total compensation at Rs. The Tribunal assessed and awarded a total compensation as under: ( 6 ) THE Tribunal thus assessed the total compensation at Rs. 1,04,000 and he further held that the claimant was guilty of the accident to an extent of 75 per cent. She is entitled to the compensation to the extent of 25 per cent of the above assessed amount, namely, she is entitled to get only rs. 26,000 as compensation with interest at 6 per cent per annum with costs. Feeling aggrieved from that order, the claimant has come up in this appeal before this court. ( 7 ) WE have heard Mr. Sowri Raju, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Prabhamurthy, learned counsel for the respondent. ( 8 ) IT has been contended by Mr. Sowri raju that the finding to the effect that there was 75 per cent contributory negligence on the part of the claimant is erroneous. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there was no contributory negligence of the claimant and she was a passenger in the bus. He further contended that if at all it is said to be contributory negligence of the claimant-appellant it cannot be more than 15 or 20 per cent. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that no witness has been examined on behalf of the respondent and as such adverse presumption be drawn against the case of the respondent. Learned counsel contended that the sums awarded as compensation are also unsatisfactory and meagre. The claimant had suffered injuries, pain and suffering and she has been hospitalized for two and a half months. The compensation awarded for injuries, shock and suffering and loss of amenities of life taken together to the extent of Rs. 30,000 (Rs. 25,000 for pain, shock and suffering and Rs. 5,000 for loss of amenities) is too meagre. He contended that under this head the compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000 should have been awarded for pain, shock and suffering and to the tune of Rs. 80,000 should have been awarded for the loss of amenities of life considering the age of the girl, i. e. , appellant injured who was aged about 26 years at the time of accident, as she has to continue with permanent disability throughout her life. Learned counsel contended that towards medical expenses and for engaging an attendant the award of a sum of rs. 5,000 and Rs. Learned counsel contended that towards medical expenses and for engaging an attendant the award of a sum of rs. 5,000 and Rs. 10,000 is also too meagre. He contended, for medical expenses at least a sum of Rs. 20,000 and a sum of Rs. 20,000 for engaging an attendant should be awarded. ( 9 ) THESE contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant have been hotly contested by the learned counsel for the respondent. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent contended that no doubt the evidence of the driver and conductor has not been produced. But the circumstances indicate that she must have boarded the bus when it was moving and she suffered injuries. She should not have tried to board the moving bus. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the evidence indicates contributory negligence of the claimant and finding to that effect is correct. About the compensation, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the compensation assessed is correct and does not need any enhancement. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant contended that the interest awarded at the rate of 6 per cent is too low looking to the present trend of the cases as well as the division Bench decision of this court and supreme Court where interest has been awarded at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. ( 12 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent contended that interest awarded at 6 per cent per annum is justified and it does not call for interference. ( 13 ) WE have applied our mind to the contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties. ( 14 ) AS regards the question of negligence, there is evidence that she was standing near the front door inside the bus. She has not clarified whether inside the bus she was standing on the steps or completely inside. If she was standing near the door and the bus had started what care she could have taken by herself when she was inside the bus unless she could get seat than remain standing where she was. She has not clarified whether inside the bus she was standing on the steps or completely inside. If she was standing near the door and the bus had started what care she could have taken by herself when she was inside the bus unless she could get seat than remain standing where she was. When she has entered the bus if taken for the moment that she was catching the bus and the conductor was issuing the tickets and she was inside the bus the duty of the driver and conductor in such case was to be more careful before the bus was being started. The drivers of the heavy vehicles are expected to be more cautious and careful than passengers in such a situation. Their duty to be careful is more than that of drivers of light vehicles or small vehicles. I do not mean that drivers of light vehicles should not be cautious and careful but the responsibility of the driver of the heavy vehicle is heavier and higher than it is required by the driver of the light vehicles. It is the duty of the driver or conductor to caution the passenger to stand inside the bus. Looking to the circumstance, no doubt it may be said that there was some contributory negligence on the part of the passenger and passengers sometimes are found to be hanging holding the rods. But when the passengers enter, the conductor should caution the passengers not to stand on the steps or in front of the door. They are expected to take precaution. But here there is no evidence on this aspect. The trial court was right in coming to the conclusion that there was negligence of the driver and conductor on the one hand and on the other hand also on the part of the passenger, the claimant- appellant. But the proportion of negligence in our opinion which has been fastened and assessed as 75 per cent on the part of the passenger, the claimant-appellant and 25 per cent on the part of the bus driver and the conductor is erroneous. In our opinion, the passenger's contributory negligence could not be more than 30 per cent while not less than 70 per cent was the negligence of the driver and conductor. In our opinion, the passenger's contributory negligence could not be more than 30 per cent while not less than 70 per cent was the negligence of the driver and conductor. We modify this finding of the trial court and hold that though there was some contributory negligence on the part of the passenger, the proportion of the negligence was greater and higher on the part of the driver and conductor of the bus and it was at least 70 per cent while of the passenger, the appellant's was 30 per cent. After having come to the conclusion we come to the question of the award of compensation. ( 15 ) LOOKING to the injuries and that the leg has been chopped and she has been hospitalized for about 2'/2 months, the award of compensation for injuries caused, pain and suffering at Rs. 25,000 is, too meagre, on the lower side and unsatisfactory. In our opinion, she should have been awarded the compensation under this head to the tune of Rs. 70,000, Towards medical expenses, it should not be less than rs. 10,000 as she may require to have artificial leg. We enhance the compensation for medical expenses and artificial limb from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 10,000. The loss of income during the treatment assessed as rs. 5,000 is correct and we do not interfere. The award of compensation for loss of earning capacity at Rs. 54,000 does not call for any interference. The cost of engaging an attendant as assessed by the tribunal to the tune of Rs. 10,000 also appears to be justified and it does not call for interference. But towards the loss of amenities of life we have to look to the age of the appellant and the after-effects, the award of Rs. 5,000 is too less. The life span of ladies in India is assessed at 60 years and of men 70 years. Now she is found to be 26 years at the time of accident and she will have to carry this inability throughout her life. She is an educated woman, her permanent disability will always cause loss to enjoyment of life. In our opinion as such towards the loss of future amenities of life the compensation to the tune of rs. 70,000 should be awarded. Thus, the total amount comes to Rs. 2,20,000. She is an educated woman, her permanent disability will always cause loss to enjoyment of life. In our opinion as such towards the loss of future amenities of life the compensation to the tune of rs. 70,000 should be awarded. Thus, the total amount comes to Rs. 2,20,000. ( 16 ) WE have found that there has been 30 per cent contributory negligence on the part of the claimant and, therefore, from rs. 2,20,000 if we deduct 30 per cent, i. e. , rs. 66,000 the claimant may be entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,54,000 as compensation. ( 17 ) AS regards the interest, in our opinion the interest as awarded at the rate of 6 per cent per annum no doubt is on the lower side and looking to the circumstances of the case, her malady, etc. , the inflation and erosion of value of rupee, we modify the interest and enhance it from 6 per cent to 9 per cent only on the enhanced amount from the date of the application till the date of payment. The amount should be deposited within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order in any interest earning nationalized bank for a period of five years. Except in case of urgency with the permission of the court, she will not be allowed to withdraw the amount before the expiry of five years' period. The claimant will be entitled to withdraw the interest earned thereon every month or quarterly as she desires. ( 18 ) THE appeal is accordingly allowed. Cost of the appeal is made easy. Appeal allowed. --- *** --- .