Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-This appeal is directed against the Judgment and award dated 08.04.2003 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajgarh (Churu) (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 8,49,600/-as compensation in favour of the claimant-respondents No. 1 to 6 (for short ‘the claimants’) and against the appellants and its driver respondent No. 7. The Tribunal also awarded interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 11.04.2000. 2. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that deceased Mahaveer Singh, who was riding the motor cycle first collided with a Tractor coming from opposite direction and thereafter motor cycle came in front of the bus owned by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation”) and was hit by the Corporation’s bus and, therefore, deceased himself was negligent and responsible for the accident. It was contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is too excessive and lastly learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal fell in error in awarding the interest @ 9% w.e.f. 11.04.2000, whereas the claim petition itself was filed before the Tribunal on 11.04.2001. Even the accident took place on 111.2000, therefore, the interest cannot be awarded from the date prior to the date of filing of the claim petition. 3. I have carefully gone through the Judgment and award impugned passed by the Tribunal, as also the record of the case. 4. From the perusal of the record, it is clear that the claim petition was filed by the claimants before the Tribunal on 11.04.2001. In claim petition, it is stated that on 111.2000, the accident took place at Jaipur Chaumu Road. The vehicle involved in the accident is the bus bearing No. RJ 21 P 0174, which was owned by the Corporation. 5. In the claim petition, it was specifically pleaded that on 111.2000 at about 6.35 p.m. deceased Mahaveer Singh was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing No. RJ 26 M 9908 alongwith one Surendra Singh and when they reached near hotel Dev Kamal, at that relevant time, the aforesaid bus came from behind which was driven by respondent No. 7 Ram Kishore rashly and negligently with great speed, hit the motor cycle. The motor cycle and its riders fell on the road and the wheels of the bus crushed Mahaveer Singh. The motor cycle and its riders fell on the road and the wheels of the bus crushed Mahaveer Singh. One Babulal, the owner of the hotel promptly lodged the First Information Report of the said accident with police station. 6. In the reply filed by the appellant Corporation, the said accident was not denied. It was contended that the motor cyclist collided with the tractor and thereafter fell on the road and despite the best efforts made by the driver of the bus, he could not be saved. The fact that deceased Mahaveer Singh was crushed under the wheels of the Corporation’s bus, has not been disputed. Before the Tribunal, AW. 1 Bhawani Singh and AW. 2 Supyar Kanwar were examined by the claimants and DW. 1 Ram Kishore Meena and DW. 2 Kejodmal, driver and conductor of the bus were also examined. AW. 1 Bhawani Singh stated that his father Mahaveer Singh was proceeding on a motor cycle on Jaipur- Chaumu road alongwith one Surendra Singh, when they were near hotel Dev Kamal, at the relevant time, the Corporation’s bus came from behind and hit the motor cycle. He further stated that his father Mahaveer Singh and one Surendra Singh were crushed under the wheels of the bus and died on the spot. He further stated that the motor cycle was on its correct side of the road which was hit by the bus driven at a great speed rashly and negligently by its driver respondent No. 7 Ram Kishore. 7. On careful scrutiny of the statement of the witnesses and the material on record, it is established that the deceased was hit by the Corporation’s bus from the behind while he was proceeding on motor cycle on the correct side of the road. Exhibit 4 site map and the site inspection note clearly shows that the motor cyclist was on the extreme left side of the road, then he was hit by the Corporation’s bus. The accident has taken place in front of the hotel Dev Kamal. The owner of the hotel Babulal, witnessed the occurrence as he was standing outside the hotel. In the First Information Report Exhibit 3. It is clearly mentioned that the bus was driven at a great speed and hit the motor cycle which was going ahead of the bus. There were two persons on the motor cycle. The owner of the hotel Babulal, witnessed the occurrence as he was standing outside the hotel. In the First Information Report Exhibit 3. It is clearly mentioned that the bus was driven at a great speed and hit the motor cycle which was going ahead of the bus. There were two persons on the motor cycle. Both were crushed under the wheels of the bus. One of them died on the spot and another was seriously injured. The Police also reached that spot within short time and prepared the site map and site inspection note Exhibit 4. From the statement of the witness produced by the claimants and the other relevant material including the FIR and the site map which are the public documents. I am of the considered opinion that the Tribunal was justified in holding the bus driver negligent and responsible for the said accident. I do not find any error in the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal with regard to the negligence of the bus driver. He further stated that deceased Mahaveer Singh was 46 years of age and was employee of R.A.C. (Rajasthan Arms Constablory) having income of Rs. 10,681/-per month from salary. Thus, it is also proved from the record that the deceased was a Government employee at the relevant time. At that time his age was about 46 years. His monthly income from salary was Rs. 10,681/-. 8. DW. 1 Ram Kishore stated that Mahaveer Singh came in front of the bus. So is also the statement of DW. 2 Kejodmal. None of these witnesses have disclosed the number of the alleged tractor. There is no involvement of the tractor in accident. Neither Ram Kishore nor Kejodmal reported the matter to the Police that the deceased first collided with tractor before he was crushed under the wheels of bus due to the accident. The salary has also been proved by Exhibit 21, according to which the basic salary of deceased Mahaveer Singh was Rs. 6,500/-, D.A. Rs. 2,470/-and other allowances. Thus, total monthly salary was Rs. 10,681/-vide Exhibit 21. Salary certificate issued by employer commandant, 9th R.A.C. on the basis of service record. The Tribunal held that the deceased was contributing Rs. 6,200/-per month to the claimants. Thus, annual dependency was determined to Rs. 74,400/-which was multiplied by a multiplier of 11 years’ purchase factor. The Tribunal also awarded compensation of Rs. 10,681/-vide Exhibit 21. Salary certificate issued by employer commandant, 9th R.A.C. on the basis of service record. The Tribunal held that the deceased was contributing Rs. 6,200/-per month to the claimants. Thus, annual dependency was determined to Rs. 74,400/-which was multiplied by a multiplier of 11 years’ purchase factor. The Tribunal also awarded compensation of Rs. 20,000/-for loss of consortium and love and affection, etc. Thus, so far as, the quantum of compensation is concerned, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive. On the contrary, the Tribunal has not taken into account the future prospects of the deceased as the deceased was a constable in RAC. He had a permanent job and had future prospects. 9. Be that as it may, the computation/assessment of compensation made by the Tribunal cannot be said to be on higher side. On the contrary if proper computation is made then the amount of compensation perhaps would be more than what has been awarded by the Tribunal. 10. On careful perusal of record, it is evident that the claimants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal on 11.04.2001 which is evident from the endorsement made in the claim petition itself . At any rate, the claim petition could not have been filed on 11.04.2000 as the accident itself has taken place on 111.2000. Thus, the awarding of the interest by the Tribunal @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 11.04.2000 is apparently typographical/clerical mistake which can be corrected by invoking the provision of Section 152, CPC, even without notice to the claimants. Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides, that where any claims Tribunal allows a claim for compensation made under this Act, such Tribunal may direct that in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as it may specify in this behalf . Thus, the interest cannot be awarded from the date earlier than the date of making the claim petition. 11. In the instant case, the claim petition was made on 11.04.2001 and, therefore, claimants are entitled for the interest w.e.f. 11.04.2001 instead of 11.04.2000. Except this correction, I do not find any error in the Judgment and award of the Tribunal. 12. Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed summarily. 11. In the instant case, the claim petition was made on 11.04.2001 and, therefore, claimants are entitled for the interest w.e.f. 11.04.2001 instead of 11.04.2000. Except this correction, I do not find any error in the Judgment and award of the Tribunal. 12. Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed summarily. However, it is made clear that the claimants are entitled for the interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 11.04.2001 instead of 11.04.2000. There shall be no order as to costs.