JUDGMENT 1. (Oral) - This appeal by the National Insurance Company has been preferred against the Award dated 21.10.2000 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jhunjhunu, in Claim Petition No. 303/99. 2. Briefly narrated the facts are that the wife, mother and three minor sons of deceased Jootha Ram filed a claim petition on 19.1.1998, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, but the same was returned to the claimants on 28.7.1999, to be presented in the Tribunal having jurisdiction and thus this claim petition was filed on 30.9.1999 in the Tribunal at Jhunjhunu. 3. It is the case of the claimants-respondents Nos. 1 to 5 that at about 10 p.m. on 6.8.1997, Shri Jootha Ram was returning to his house. At that time Shri Shravn Kumar who was driving Truck No. RRC 5598 rashly and negligently hit Jootha Ram, who died on the spot. Compensation of 1 Rs. 42,69,000/- was claimed. Non-applicant-respondents Nos. 6 and 7 respectively driver and owner of the truck in their joint reply admitted the facts of accident by this truck but denied any negligence on the part of the driver. The appellant insurance Company in reply denied its liability. 4. Issues were framed. Evidence was recorded and the Tribunal vide judgment dated 21.10.2000, came to this conclusion that it was the driver of this truck who was negligent and on account of that this accident took place in which Jootha Ram died. The Tribunal thereafter proceeded to decide the income and passed the Award for a sum of Rs. 5 lacs with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. 5. It is not in dispute that the appellant Company filed an application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and obtained the permission to contest the claim petition on merits. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant firstly submitted that this truck was not involved in this accident and only to claim compensation this truck has been involved in this accident. He referred the statement of A.W. 1 Smt. Rookmani Devi, wife of the deceased wherein she admitted in cross-examination that she came to know about this fact on 29.8.1997 that this truck was involved in the accident and thus her statement is not reliable. It was also submitted that there is eye account of this accident and thus involvement of this truck in this accident is not proved. It was also submitted that there is eye account of this accident and thus involvement of this truck in this accident is not proved. Learned counsel for the claimants contended that there is no ground to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal on this point and after investigation charge sheet came to be .filed against the driver of this truck and copy of the charge sheet Ex.1 is available on the record. 7. I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the first information report Ex.2 no doubt goes to show that this accident occurred by some unknown vehicle but after investigation charge sheet came to be filed against the present driver and thus only on account of non- mentioning the number of the truck and name of the driver such conclusion cannot be drawn that this truck was not involved in this accident. Further, on the basis of the statement of A.W,1 Smt. Rookmani Devi that she came to know about the involvement of this truck not before 29.8.1997, this submission can not be allowed that this truck was not involved in this accident as she has admitted that she was not present at the place of accident. AW2 Banwari Lal has specifically stated that this accident took place on account of negligent driving of non-applicant Shravan Kumar. It is significant to say here that in reply accident was admitted by the driver as well as owner of this truck. One suggestion was given to AW2 Shri Banwari Lal in cross-examination that he and Jhutha Ram both had consumed liquor and they had seen the truck form a distance of 100 ft. This suggestion goes to show that accident by this true has not been disputed by the appellant insurance company. Therefore, the first submission made by learned counsel for the appellant is not allowed. It was next submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that there was no evidence of the income and further the Tribunal also did not determine monthly income and straightway held that in its judicial discretion, monthly dependency comes to Rs. 25001- and by applying multiplier of 16, a sum of Rs 4.80,000/- was determined as compensation. In addition, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 20,0001- on account of shock, agony, suffering and loss of love and affection. Learned counsel for the respondent claimants has supported the findings of. 25001- and by applying multiplier of 16, a sum of Rs 4.80,000/- was determined as compensation. In addition, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 20,0001- on account of shock, agony, suffering and loss of love and affection. Learned counsel for the respondent claimants has supported the findings of. the Tribunal with regard to amount of the compensation. I have considered the pleadings, evidence and submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. in claim petition monthly income of Rs. 10,000/- from agriculture operations has been pleaded without giving any details and extent of the land. AVV1 Smt. Rookmani Devi simply stated that monthly income of her husband from agriculture was Rs. 10,000/-. In cross-examination she stated that only 5 bighas of land was owned by her husband and he used to cultivate the land of others also. It is significant to say here that there is no such plea in the claim petition and further no particulars have been given with regard to cultivation of land belonging to others. The claimants have also not produced any documentary evidence to show the extent of land owned by deceased Jootha Ram and thus in absence of any such pleadings and evidence, monthly dependency of Rs. 2500/- can not be justified at all. It is also important to say here that the Tribunal did not arrive at any monthly income and straightway determined monthly dependency of Rs. 2500/-, without making any deduction as personal expenses of the deceased Jootha Ram. Thus in view of above discussion and considering the nature of the work of the deceased his monthly income can be determined Rs. 1800/- and one third amount should be deducted as personal expenses of the deceased and thus applying the multiplier of 16 a compensation comes to Rs. 2,30,400/-. In pare 4(d) of the Memo of appeal a compensation of approximately Rs. 2 lacs has been said to be just and proper even according to the appellant. Adding the amount of Rs. 20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2.50.400/-. 8. On the point of interest, two objections have been raised on behalf of the appellant. First is that interest should have been allowed from 30.9.1999 the date on which this claim petition was filed at Jhunjhunu and not from the date 19 1.1998 when this claim petition was filed at Jaipur. 2.50.400/-. 8. On the point of interest, two objections have been raised on behalf of the appellant. First is that interest should have been allowed from 30.9.1999 the date on which this claim petition was filed at Jhunjhunu and not from the date 19 1.1998 when this claim petition was filed at Jaipur. This objection has got no merit as the claim petition filed on 19.1.1998 was returned to the claimants on account of lack of territorial jurisdiction by the Tribunal at Jaipur to be presented before the appropriate Tribunal and this order was passed on 28.7.1999 and thereafter this claim petition was presented at Jhunjhunu. Thus the Tribunal rightly awarded the interest from 19.1.1998, the first date of presentation of this claim petition. The next objection is that interest at the rate of 9% p.a. should have been allowed instead of 12% p.a. arid reliance was placed upon Smt. Kaushnuma Begum and others v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others, 2000 SOL Case No. 749 . Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents placing reliance upon two judgments of Karnataka and Gauhati High Courts, respectively reported in Ram Krishna Reddy v. Manager, H.M.T. Ltd. and another, 2003 ACJ 105 and Kanika Hazarika and others v. Sreeam Barthakur and others, 2003 ACJ 159 , contended that interest rates were enhanced respectively from 10% and 9% to 12% from the date of application. 9. According to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court the Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition and only allowed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as no fault liability. Thus in view of these facts, the Hon'ble Apex Court allowed interest at the ate of 9% p.a. on the said amount. It is significant to say here that no rate of interest was determined by the Tribunal. While Karnataka as well as Gauhati High Courts enhanced the rate of interest to 12% from 10% so and 9% p a. respectively awarded by the Tribunal. In view of the aforesaid discussion I find no justiciable ground to reduce the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal. 10. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed and the amount 1 awarded with regard to compensation stands modified and the respondents-claimants would be entitled to receive the total claim of Rs. 2,50,400/- with interest as allowed by the Tribunal instead of Rs. 5 lacs as compensation awarded by the Tribunal.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******