JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 12.6.1996 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 2, Udaipur (for short the Tribunal'). whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.6,80,000/- in favour of respondent-claimants No. 1 to 6 (for short 'the claimants') and against the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur (for short 'the Corporation'). aggrieved by the judgment and award impugned, the Corporation has filed the instant appeal. 2. Briefly stated facts which are relevant and necessary for decision of this appeal are that on 5.1.1995 at about 8.45 PM., Kanhaiya Lal was proceeding from village Parsad to Peepli. He was walking on his correct side of the road. At the relevant time, the bus owned by the Corporation bearing No. RJ-14 P-1558 came from opposite direction, which was driven by its driver respondent No. 7 Sarafat Ali at a great speed and rashly and negligently, suddently went towards extreme wrong side of the road and hit Kanhiya Lal, who succumbed to injuries instantaneously. The said accident took place near the hotel owned by AW 3 Vijay Kumar. The claimants, who are the legal representatives of deceased Kanhiya Lal filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 90,21,000/-. The corporation filed its written statement denying negligence of its driver respondent No. 7. However, the accident was not disputed. It was further pleaded that deceased himself was intoxicated as he had consumed alcohol and, therefore, the deceased himself was negligent for the said accident. Before the Tribunal, the claimants produced AW 1 Somibai widow of deceased. AW 2 Kamlesh son of deceased and AW 3 Vijay Kumar, eye-witness of the occurrence. The Corporation produced NAW-1 Sarafat All, the bus driver and NAW-2 Vishnu Dass, the bus conductor. On appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal held that the said accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the Corporation's bus by its driver respondent No. 7. While computing compensation, the Tribunal assessed and awarded Rs.6,80,000/- as compensation. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment and award impugned as well as the record of the Tribunal. I have also carefully gone through the pleadings and the evidence produced by the parties. 4. AW 3 Vijay Kumar is an independent eye-witness of the occurrence. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment and award impugned as well as the record of the Tribunal. I have also carefully gone through the pleadings and the evidence produced by the parties. 4. AW 3 Vijay Kumar is an independent eye-witness of the occurrence. His presence at the site of occurrence has not been doubted inasmuch as the accident has taken place in front of hotel run by him. He stated that Kanhiya Lal was proceeding from Peepli to his village at about 8.45 in the night. At the relevant time, the bus owned by the Corporation came from opposite side i.e. from the side of kasariyaji and hit Kanhiya Lal, who was walking on his left side of the road. Kanhiya Lal succumbed to injuries instantaneously. He has stated that he and his servant Prabhulal were sitting outside the hotel owned by him. He further stated that within 20-30 minutes, police came on the spot. He reported the said accident to the police vide F.I.R. Ex.1. The first information report Ex.1 was lodged by AW 3 Vijay Kumar, who proved FIR Ex. 1 and site inspection note and site inspection memo Ex. 3. AW 3 in clear terms stated that the said accident occurred due to fault of driver of the Corporation's bus. He was put to lengthy cross-examination but nothing could be elicited. So far as happening of the accident due to negligence of the driver of the bus is concerned, the statement of this witness is consistent. 5. In rebuttal, the Corporation produced its driver Sarafat Ali NAW 1, who in his statement has stated that deceased had consumed alcohol and in order to save him, he applied the brake but could not avoid accident. He further stated that deceased collided with the milestone and then with the bus. In cross-examination, he admitted that after investigation, police found him negligent for the said accident and a charge-sheet was filed against him in the competent court. He admitted that site map Ex.3 was prepared by the police during the investigation. He also admitted that mark 'x' shown in Ex. 3, the site map is the place where the accident took place. Obviously, the mark 'x' shown in Ex. 3 is on the extreme left side of the road where deceased while walking road side was hit by the said bus. He also admitted that mark 'x' shown in Ex. 3, the site map is the place where the accident took place. Obviously, the mark 'x' shown in Ex. 3 is on the extreme left side of the road where deceased while walking road side was hit by the said bus. Thus, it cannot be said that at the relevant time of accident, the deceased was walking in the middle of the road. On the contrary, even from the statement of NAW-1, the driver of the Corporation's bus, it is evident that the deceased was on extreme left side of the road and the bus was on extreme right side which is wrong side of the road when he was hit by the bus. Similarly NAW-2 Vishnu Dass, the conductor of the bus stated that on 5.1.1995, he was conductor of the bus owned by the Corporation and a truck was found parked on the left side of the road just opposite to hotel (Dhaba). A person suddenly appeared and wanted to stop the bus. The bus driver applied the brake but in the meantime, collided with the said person and thereafter, that person fell down on the milestone. 6. Considering the fact that there are material contradictions in the statements of bus driver NAW 1 and bus conductor NAW 2 and relying on the testimony of an independent eye-witness AW 3 Vijay Kumar, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the said accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the bus owned by the Corporation by its driver respondent No. 7. 7. I have carefully considered the entire material available on record and in my considered opinion, the Tribunal rightly held the Corporation's bus driver respondent No. 7 negligent for the said accident. Presence of AW 3, an eye-witness of the accident has not been doubted and rightly so as the accident has taken place just in front of his hotel and his presence at the hotel is quite natural. More so, a prompt FIR Ex. 1 was lodged by this witness and he made the statement to the police under section 161 Cr.PC. promptly narrating the manner in which the said accident took place. He is witness to site map Ex.3. This fact has riot been disputed by the Corporation or its driver. More so, a prompt FIR Ex. 1 was lodged by this witness and he made the statement to the police under section 161 Cr.PC. promptly narrating the manner in which the said accident took place. He is witness to site map Ex.3. This fact has riot been disputed by the Corporation or its driver. Not only this, the driver of the Corporation's bus himself admitted the place of accident which is marked as 'x' in Ex. 3 site map, which is extreme left side of the road where deceased was walking when he was hit by the bus. Thus, the defence put forward by the bus driver that the deceased had consumed alcohol and was walking in the middle of the road under intoxication, cannot be believed. In this view of the matter, I find no error in the finding recorded by the Tribunal holding the bus driver negligent for the said accident. 8. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal fell in error while determining the monthly income. The Tribunal doubled the monthly income of the deceased which he was earning at the relevant time. Learned counsel further submitted that the multiplier of 10 applied by the Tribunal is excessive and lastly he contended that the Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum, which is on higher side. 9. Learned counsel for the claimants supported the judgment impugned. It has been pleaded and proved by the claimants that at the relevant time of accident, deceased Kanhaiya Lal was a young person of 31 years of age. He was an employee of Hindustan Zinc Ltd., the Government of India Enterprise, Udaipur. The salary certificate Ex.7 shows his monthly income as Rs.4149/-. The deceased was on a stable job and had future prospects. 10. The Tribunal relying on the judgment of apex Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Smt. Susamma Thomas, reported in 1994(1) ACJ 1 , determined the dependency at Rs.5540/- per month and multiplied the annual dependency by a multiplier of 10 years purchase factor. Added to this, Rs.15200/- for consortium, love and affection etc. 11. 10. The Tribunal relying on the judgment of apex Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Smt. Susamma Thomas, reported in 1994(1) ACJ 1 , determined the dependency at Rs.5540/- per month and multiplied the annual dependency by a multiplier of 10 years purchase factor. Added to this, Rs.15200/- for consortium, love and affection etc. 11. In General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Smt. Susamma Thomas (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that future prospects of advancement in life and career should be sounded in terms of money to augment the multiplicand. In the instant case, the deceased had a stable job having salary of Rs.4149/- at the age of 31 years. He had future prospects and therefore, in my considered opinion, the Tribunal has rightly determined the monthly dependency after taking into consideration the future prospects of deceased. At the time of accident, as many as six persons were dependent on his income and, therefore, the monthly contribution determined by the Tribunal cannot be said to be erroneous or excessive. More so, in the instant case, even if it is assumed that the monthly contribution is slightly on higher side, the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is on lower side and if the contribution is reduced and applied by an appropriate multiplier applicable to the age group of victim/deceased, then the amount of compensation would not be less than what has been awarded by the Tribunal. It is settled law that in appeal quantum is interfered, if the compensation awarded is either too low or too excessive, as the case may be. Obviously, in view of aforesaid discussion, the compensation computed and awarded cannot be said to be too excessive. Hence, quantum calls for no interference. 12. So far as interest is concerned, in Kaushnuma Begum v. United India Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2001(2) SCC 9 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that earlier, 12% was found to be reasonable rate of simple interest, with a change in economy and policy of Reserve Bank of India the interest rate has been lowered. The Nationalised Banks are now granting interest at the rate of 9% on fixed deposits. 13. The Nationalised Banks are now granting interest at the rate of 9% on fixed deposits. 13. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion, that the claimants are entitled for interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of judgment of apex court i.e. w.e.f. 3.1.2001 in Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra). 14. No other point was argued. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the judgment and award impugned is modified to the extent that the interest awarded at the rate of 12% per annum is reduced to 9% per annum w.e.f. 3.1.2001 till realisation. Rest of the award remains unmodified. Appeal is accordingly, disposed of.However, there shall be no order as to costs.Award Modified by Reducing Interest - Rest of Award upheld. *******