JUDGMENT 1. - The present misc. appeal under Section 173, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of award has been filed challenging Award dated 8.4.1992 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur in MAC Case o. 494/89 holding respondents jointly and severally liable and allowing compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,36,048/- to the appellants. The appellants have prayed for an amount of Rs. 15,61,000/- with suitable rate of interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. 2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case, as have been stated, in the claim petition filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by the appellants, inter-alia, are that Bhagwandas Gupta, a Sr. P.A. in the Secretariat, while he was returning to his house riding on his scooter RRB 3259 in a moderate speed after dropping his friend at Sindhi Camp Bus Stand, when reached near the petrol pump on Jaipur-Agra National Highway, truck No. DDL 1768, which was being driven in a very fast speed, rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1, by overtaking him came ahead of him and turning the truck on the, left side stopped suddenly. It was further stated in the claim petition that on account of glaring headlights of vehicles coming from opposite side he could not see the back side of the truck, dashed against it and fell down, which resulted in grievous injuries to him and he became unconscious. Thereafter, he was admitted in the Neuro Surgical Ward in the Hospital and died next day. 3. It is the case of the appellants, who are son, daughters and wife of the deceased, that Late Shri Bhgawandas in his 47 years of age was a healthy person, who was working in the Secretariat as Sr. P.A. and was drawing salary of about Rs. 3,800/- per month. He was recently promoted and he being a hard labourer and dedicated person would have progressed in his life and there was every possibility of his future promotions. It was expected that by regular promotions he could have reached to the post of Dy. Secretary in the RAS cadre. He during his service tenure many a times had been the Personal Assistant of Ministers and Senior IAS Officers and there was every possibility that he would have earned equivalent to his salary even after his retirement by doing some work. Secretary in the RAS cadre. He during his service tenure many a times had been the Personal Assistant of Ministers and Senior IAS Officers and there was every possibility that he would have earned equivalent to his salary even after his retirement by doing some work. lie loved his family a lot and his aim was to give best education to his children and to lead them to a splendid life but due to his sudden death all his dreams have shattered and the family has been exposed to so many problems. According to the appellants, to compensate the loss caused due to his death is impossible, however, they claimed a sum of Rs. 15,61,000/- under different heads. 4. The respondents filed their replies to the claim petition and pleaded that the truck in question was standing on the left side of the road and the deceased, who was on a scooter, dashed against the truck due to his own negligence. 5. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings of parties, framed five issues for deciding the matter. The first issue was about the negligence of the driver of the truck. The second issue relate to the accident being caused in the employment of respondent No. 2 by respondent No. 1 driver. The third pertained to compensation and its proportion. Fourth was in relation to the negligence of deceased Bhagwandas. The fifth issue was of relief. 6. Before the learned tribunal, AW-1 to AW-5 -were examined as witnesses on behalf of appellant-claimants and some documents were produced, however, no witness appeared on behalf of the respondents. Considering the evidence produced by the parties, the learned tribunal found the deceased equally responsible and guilty of contributory negligence for the accident and awarded a sum of Rs. 2,36,048/- to the appellants. Dissatisfied with the award amount, the appellants have approached this Court by filing the present appeal. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Impugned award and the relevant material available on record. 8. The only argument which has been raised before me is that the learned Tribunal has not properly considered the matter inasmuch as that the deceased was a permanent Govt. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Impugned award and the relevant material available on record. 8. The only argument which has been raised before me is that the learned Tribunal has not properly considered the matter inasmuch as that the deceased was a permanent Govt. employee and was having fair chances of progress in his life, therefore, the calculation of salary for awarding compensation while applying multiplier of 13 has been made at the lower side which ought to have been at the higher side in view of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 2003 (2) WLC (SC) Civil 149-Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. D.G. Geological Survey of India & Anr. , and the decisions of this Court In 2004 WLC (Raj.) UC. 789-Smt, Kali 0 Kalyani &' Ors v. Indra Raj Bairwa & Ors. , 2004 WLC (Raj.) UC. 791-Smt. .Chandra Kanta & five ors. v. Asfak Ahmad &' Ors. , and 2001 WLC (Raj.) 116-Niranjanlal Yadav v. RSRTC & Ors. 9. On the other hand, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned award has correctly considered the quantum of compensation taking into consideration over all facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, the awards not liable to be interfered with. It has also been contended that there has been substantial decrease in the rate of interest and looking to the present rate of interest in the banks and the interest being awarded in such type of cases, the rate of interest Is required to be reduced to 9%. 10. I have considered the submissions made before me. 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court In the case of Abati Bezbaruah (supra), which relate to a person dying at the age of 40 earning Rs. 3500/- per month, in view of future prospects in career, worked out the award at Rs. 4,50,000/- In place of Rs. 2,50,000/- and raised interest from 8% to 9% and observed that interest can be granted even if not claimed. In that very judgment Hon'ble Dr. 3500/- per month, in view of future prospects in career, worked out the award at Rs. 4,50,000/- In place of Rs. 2,50,000/- and raised interest from 8% to 9% and observed that interest can be granted even if not claimed. In that very judgment Hon'ble Dr. A.R. Lakshmanan, J. speaking for the Court observed that the rate of interest must be just and reasonable depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and taking all relevant factors Including inflation, change of economy, policy being adopted by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time, how long the case is pending, permanent injuries suffered by the victim, enormity of ,suffering, loss of future Income, loss of enjoyment of life etc. The Court further 'there cannot be any hard and fast rule In awarding interest and the award of interest is solely on the discretion of the tribunal or the Nigh Court. . 12. In Smt. Kali @ Kalyani Ors. (supra), a Division Bench of this Court In view of future prospects in career assessed the income at a higher rate and accordingly fixed the dependency. The Award of Rs. 6,43,680/- was enhanced to Rs. 10,84,320/- and claim of interest was allowed. 13. In Smt. Chandra Kanta & five Ors. (supra), a Division Bench of this court taking into account the future prospects of a salaried person assessed the salary at double and the amount of award was enhanced from 2,53,000/- to 3,68,640/-, The Court also allowed Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of consortium. "the Court also awarded interest on the enhanced amount 9%. 14. In another case cited by learned counsel appearing for appellant viz., the case of Niranjanlal Yadav (supra), the Chief Justice of this Court, Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.R. Laxmanan (as he then was), finding future prospects In career of an income tax payer salaried at Rs. 10,000/- whose dependency in appeal was assessed at Rs. 7,500/- and award was reduced, restored the award as passed by the Tribunal observing, ". . . The deceased had a stable job. He was employed in M/s. Pesticides India Limited on a very key post of Financial Advisor and was getting salary of Rs. 14018.50P. The record shows that he was a person of outstanding academic career with highly promising future and there were clear chances of increase in his remuneration in coming years. . . The deceased had a stable job. He was employed in M/s. Pesticides India Limited on a very key post of Financial Advisor and was getting salary of Rs. 14018.50P. The record shows that he was a person of outstanding academic career with highly promising future and there were clear chances of increase in his remuneration in coming years. However, he died at the age of 32 years leaving behind the claimants. In our opinion, if a person with such a outstanding academic career met with such a tragic accident, his legal heirs should have been granted proper and sufficient compensation. In this view of matter, we are of the opinion that the learned single Judge has erred in reducing compensation from Rs. 18,15,000/- to Rs. 14,55,000/, If future prospects and advancement of life and career are taken into account, certainly more compensation should be payable to the claimants even if existing multiplicant and multiplier are taken into account. Looking into the income which deceased was earning, status of life enjoyed by him and the future prospects and career of the deceased we feel ourselves justified in setting aside the compensation awarded by the learned Single Judge and in restoring the compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur at Rs. 18,55,000/-." 15. A perusal of above decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court' and this. Court clearly indicates that while assessing the quantum of compensation the future prospects of a person deceased are required to be taken into consideration. 16. In the present case, the assessment of dependency has been made considering the income of deceased as Rs. 4,133/- per month. The deceased as per the statement of AW-1 was a permanent Govt. employee In the Govt. Secretariat and was working on the post of Sr. P.A. at the relevant time and was drawing Rs. 4,133/- per month as has been found by the learned Tribunal, However, it appears that future prospect of enhancement in salary of the deceased, in case he would have remain alive and been in service, has not been adequately appreciated and as such in view of various decisions of Supreme Court highlighting the future prospects and status in life etc. in cases relating to motor accident claims, the award is required to be enhanced suitably. in cases relating to motor accident claims, the award is required to be enhanced suitably. I feel that ends of justice would meet adopting the multiplier of 13 and assessing the dependency of the appellants taking the income of deceased to be 6,000/- per month instead of Rs. 4,133/- looking to his future prospects, the difference of amount Is awarded to be paid to the wife of the deceased. 17. Consequently, taking the income of deceased as Rs. 6,000/- per month, when ⅓ of its Is deducted towards his personal living expenses, it comes to Rs. 2,000/- and the dependency comes to Rs. 4,000/- per month or Rs. 48,000/- per year and on capitalizing it by adopting multiplier of 13, it works out to Rs. 6,24,000/-, but the deceased having been held responsible for contributory negligence, the dependents are liable to be awarded Rs. 3,12,000/- whereas the learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 2,36,048 and as such I enhance the amount of award to that extent. The difference amount of award i.e. Rs. 75,952/- is to be paid by the respondents in terms of responsibility fixed for making payment by the learned Tribunal vide impugned award dated 8.4.1992 to the appellant No.1 Suit. Radha Devi W/o Late Bhagwan Das Gupta, which would be deposited in fixed deposit in a nationalised bank or monthly interest scheme in any post office in the joint name of herself and appellants No. 2 and 3 nearby Her place. The appellant-claimants shall be free to use the amount of interest accruing on the deposit. It may be clarified here that no loan or advance of any kind and/or pre-mature encashment shall be permitted in respect of the said fixed deposit. However, on an application being made to the Tribunal and it being satisfied about the urgency of any need and absence of financial resources to meet any urgent financial need, the Tribunal may permit loan or advance or pre-mature encashment by a detailed reasoned order. 18. As regards interest, the Tribunal has awarded interest ) 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition which cannot be sustained for the reason that same is excessive and not being in consonance with the prevailing Reserve Bank policies and the various decisions of the Apex Court including the decision given in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Patricia J. Mahajan & Ors. Ltd. v. Patricia J. Mahajan & Ors. 2002 (6) SCC 281 wherein the same was reduced to 9% per annum, therefore, the same is reduced to 9% per annum. On the enhanced amount of compensation awarded, the appellant shall be entitled to interest 09% per annum from the date of impugned judgment if the amount is not paid by the respondents in terms of responsibility fixed by the Tribunal while passing impugned award to the widow of deceased within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 19. No other point was urged. 20. In the result, appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated hereinabove.Appeal partly allowed. *******