JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 4th May, 1995 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand (for short, 'The Tribunal' hereinafter) whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 31,900/- along with consolidated lump-sum interest Rs. 8,100/- in favour s of the claimant-appellant (for short. the claimant' hereinafter) and against the respondents. However, the liability of respondent No. 3 insurance company was held to be limited to the extent of Rs. 15,000/-. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimant has filed the instant appeal seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. 2. Briefly stated, the facts to the extent they are relevant and necessary for the decision of this appeal are that on 30,01.1987 claimant Bhoor Singh was travelling in bus bearing No. RSJ 5857 from Badnor to Bheem as a passenger. The said bus was driven rashly and negligently by its driver respondent Gheesulal. The bus was owned by respondent No. 2 Amarchand is and was insured with the respondent insurance company under certificate of insurance Ex.A/I for the period commencing from 13th February, 1986 to 12th February, 1987. Due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver it turned turtle and occupant passenger the claimant (appellant herein) sustained sever injuries on his person. A claim was filed by the claimant before the Tribunal for compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,68,000/- Respondent No. 2 Amarchand as well as respondent No. 3 insurance company filed their respective written-statement. on appreciation of the evidence produced by the parties, the Tribunal held the respondent No. 1 Gheesulal negligent and responsible for the said accident and held the claimant entitled to receive compensation from the respondents as noted above. However, while deciding the issue of limited liability i.e., issue No. 3, the Tribunal held the insurance company liable to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- only. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the judgment and award impugned. I have also carefully gone through the record of the Tribunal. 4. The only point argued by learned counsel for the appellant is that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of income is to shockingly inadequate and was not commensurate with the injuries suffered be the claimant. Perused the judgment and award impugned. I have also carefully gone through the record of the Tribunal. 4. The only point argued by learned counsel for the appellant is that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of income is to shockingly inadequate and was not commensurate with the injuries suffered be the claimant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent owner supported the judgment of the Tribunal so far as computation of compensation is concerned. He has, however, contended that the Tribunal fail in error in limiting the liability of the insurance company to the extent of 15,000/-. He further contended that the burden to prove issue No. 3 was or the insurance company which failed to prove it in accordance with law and, therefore: in the instant case, the insurance company should be held liable for the payment of the entire amount of compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the insurance company supported the finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 3 and contended that undisputedly the vehicle in which the claimant was travelling as a passenger was a passenger vehicle an under the provisions of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short, the old Act) as it was applicable on the relevant date of said accident, the liability of the insurance company for per passenger is limited to the extent of Rs. 15,000/-. 6. So far as limited liability of the insurance company to the extent of Rs 15,000/- is concerned, the policy of insurance Ex.A/1 is on record. A copy of the said policy was exhibited before the Tribunal by the claimant on 24.1.1995 as is evident from the order-sheet dated 27.04.1995. Under the said policy, respondent No. 2 insured paid Rs. 444/- for 37 passengers at the rate of Rs. 12/- per passenger. for the purpose of covering the risk of each passenger to the extent of Rs. 15,000/-. From the said policy it is revealed that no additional premium was paid by the insured towards coverage of higher risk in respect of passengers carried in the bus insured. Thus from the aforesaid certificate of insurance Ex.A/1, it is obvious that the insurance company has not charged any additional premium for covering higher liability than the one provided under the old Act. Thus from the aforesaid certificate of insurance Ex.A/1, it is obvious that the insurance company has not charged any additional premium for covering higher liability than the one provided under the old Act. The legal proposition in this regard stands concluded by the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company v. C.M. Jaya & Others, (2002) WLC (SC) Civil 179 Besides, the finding of the Tribunal on this score is not challenged by the respondent owner and the claimant is estoppel from impugning the finding of the Tribunal in view of the fact that he has admitted the policy before it. Therefore, the contention raised by learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 assailing the finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 3 has no force and is rejected. 7. Now, the question remains for consideration as to adequacy or inadequacy of the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. In the claim petition, the claimant has pleaded and proved that due to the said accident he sustained injuries on skull and abdomen. He also suffered injury so in the said accident causing urethal vescical damage which resulted in inability to pass urine. A.W.-1, claimant Bhoor singh stated on oath before the Tribunal that he sustained leg injury resulting in fracture of leg. Due to the sever injuries sustained in the accident, he was immediately taken to Bheem for treatment and there, looking to his serious condition, he was referred to Beawar hospital. Accordingly, he was taken therefrom to Beawar hospital in a car where he remained admitted in the hospital for two months. There he underwent various operations. Thereafter, he was taken to Ahmedabad where he was admitted to Shardaben Hospital where he was treated for urethral damage. In the Shardaben Hospital at Ahmedabad he remained admitted for three months. Despite prolonged treatment, the injury caused to the urine to bladder could not be cured. He was required to go frequently to Ahmedabad for further treatment. At the relevant tine, he was engaged as a labourer in the factory of one Kashiram in Ahmedabad at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month. He has incurred Rs. 20,000/- for his treatment and has also incurred expenses on transportation. Because of the injuries he could not resume his job for about two and a half years resulting thereby in his losing the job permanently. 1,500/- per month. He has incurred Rs. 20,000/- for his treatment and has also incurred expenses on transportation. Because of the injuries he could not resume his job for about two and a half years resulting thereby in his losing the job permanently. In support of the claim, the claimant produced injury report Ex.-3, radiologist report Ex.-4, record of treatment Ex.-5 to 17, treatment bills Ex.-18 to 47, X-ray report Ex.-48, E.S.I. hospital treatment record Ex.-49 to 53, the admission and discharge tickets issued by the Shardaben General Hospital, Saraspur, Ahmedabad Ex.-14, investigation report Ex.-15 dated 13.06.1987 issued by Dr. Mahendra Belani, Civil Hospital & B.J. Medical College Hospital, Ahmedabad and certificate of permanent disability Ex.-16 issued by Dr. Manubhai V. Pipaliya. Dr. Mahendra Beiani vide Ex-15 opined about damage to the urethra as, "Stricture urethra bulbous portion with vescical diverticula and unable to pass urine through urethra with stream". Dr. M V. Belani, on examination on 08.01.1987, assessed the permanent disability due to the accident to the extent of 30 per cent. 8. From the documents placed on record by the claimant, it is established that in the said accident apart from other injuries, the claimant sustained fracture of superior and interior ramie of public bones and urethral damage. He underwent various operations and prolonged treatment at Beawar and Ahmedabad. The Tribunal awarded a meagre amount of Rs. 14,000/- in all under various heads for such severe injuries which resulted in permanent disability. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 5,000/- for loss of income and permanent disability ignoring the fact that the claimant became permanently disabled to the extent of 30 per cent due to the injuries. At the relevant time, he used to earn Rs. 1,500/- per month Even from the medical record placed before the Tribunal it is apparent that he remained hospitalised in various hospitals for 4 to 5 months and underwent prolonged treatment thereafter. The loss of income computed by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate. Even taking the monthly income of the claimant at Rs. 1,000/- he is entitled for loss of income for at least two and a half years Thus, the loss of income work out to Rs. 25,000/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 15,000/- for partial permanent disablement and physical pain and suffering and mental agony. Even taking the monthly income of the claimant at Rs. 1,000/- he is entitled for loss of income for at least two and a half years Thus, the loss of income work out to Rs. 25,000/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 15,000/- for partial permanent disablement and physical pain and suffering and mental agony. This amount is also grossly inadequate looking to the number and nature of injuries, more particularly that urethral injury resulted in inability to pass urine and, therefore, he became lifelong handicapped person. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for physical pain and suffering and mental agony, future loss of income as well as for permanent disablement. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 6,000/- for treatment. Rs. 400/- for conveyance charges. Rs. 500/- for nourishing diet. These amounts appear to be reasonable and justified. Thus, the total amount works out to Rs. 81,900/- rounded to Rs. 82,000/-. 9. The Tribunal awarded consolidated interest in lump sum of Rs. 8,1000/- I am of the opinion that awarding consolidated interest by the Tribunal cannot be justified. Section 110CC of the old Act, corresponding to s Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. provides that where any Claims Tribunal allows a claim for compensation made under the Act, such Tribunal lay direct that in addition to the amount of compensation, simple interest hail also be paid at such rate and from such date, not earlier than the date ,f making the claim, as it may specify in this behalf. In Kaushuma Begum v. United India Insurance Company, reported in (2001) 2 SCC 9 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that earlier 12 per cent simple interest was considered to be proper but in view of the fact that the Reserve Bank of India has lowered down the rate of interest to 9 per cent for a fixed deposit for one year, interest should be awarded on the amount of compensation at the rate of 9 per cent instead of 12 per cent per annum. Considering this fact, interest is allowed at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of presenting the claim application. 10. No other point was urged. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion and observations, this appeal is allowed. Considering this fact, interest is allowed at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of presenting the claim application. 10. No other point was urged. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion and observations, this appeal is allowed. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 82,000/-. This amount shall carry simple interest at the rate or 9 per cent per annum from the date of presenting the application for claim till realisation and, consequently, the order of the Tribunal to the extent it has awarded consolidated interest in lump sum stands set aside. No order as to costs.Appeal Allowed - Award Modified. *******