K. SREEDHAR RAO, S. S. PATIL, J. ( 1 ) GOOGIHAL takes notice for the respondent in all the above appeals. All the appeals arise out of the same accident. ( 2 ) THE petitioners were the inmates of the K. S. R. T. C. bus. One of the passengers by name Gangadhar Bhavi was stealthily carrying the explosives. The carriage of explosives in the passenger bus is prohibited and made punishable. For some accidental reason, the hidden explosives exploded resulting in the personal injuries to the petitioners. Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation to petitioners and directed the N. E. K. R. T. C. to pay the compensation. Hence, the appeal. ( 3 ) MR. D. Vijayakumar, counsel for the appellant argued that there is no negligence on the part of the conductor and driver of the bus. The passenger in violation of the rules was stealthily carrying the explosives and that police have filed a case against gangadhar Bhavi for the offence of carrying the explosives. Hence, the appellant does not incur any vicarious liability. It is further argued that the decision of the apex Court in Samir Chanda v. Managing director, Assam State Trans. Corpn. , 1998 acj 1351 (SC), relied on by the Tribunal has no application to the facts of this case. There was no state of terror prevalent in the area at the time when the accident took place. Therefore, it was not warranted on the part of the appellant nor its conductor to have taken extra precautions to intensively check and verify the baggage of the passengers. ( 4 ) THE contention that there was a state of normalcy, therefore extra protection was not warranted on the part of the appellant and its conductor to check the baggage of each of the passengers is an untenable contention. When rules strictly prohibit carriage of explosives by the passengers the management and the conductor should take every time all necessary precautions to detect any carriage of explosives stealthily. Merely because there was a state of normalcy is not a ground on the part of the appellant nor its conductor to remain complacent and not to check baggage of its passengers. The assumed reason of state of normalcy is not a ground to exonerate the tortious liability. In that view, fastening of liability on the part of the appellant by the tribunal is sound and proper. The assumed reason of state of normalcy is not a ground to exonerate the tortious liability. In that view, fastening of liability on the part of the appellant by the tribunal is sound and proper. ( 5 ) THE petitioner in M. V. C. No. 369 of 2002 sustained burn injuries on the right leg, left leg, hand, elbow and foot. The deep burns are to the extent of 40 per cent. Petitioner was inpatient in a hospital for about a month. Petitioner has been treated and advised to take treatment as outpatient after 10 days. On overall consideration of facts and evidence petitioner is entitled to a global compensation of Rs. 50,000 with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of petition till payment as against rs. 96,500 awarded by the Tribunal. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY, M. F. A. No. 7094 of 2004 is allowed in part as indicated above and M. F. A. Crob. No. 239 of 2005 is dismissed. ( 7 ) PETITIONERS in M. V. C. Nos. 381 and 382 of 2002 have also sustained burn injuries. The compensation of Rs. 20,000 and rs. 10,000 respectively, awarded by the tribunal is sound and proper and does not call for interference. However, interest is reduced to 6 per cent per annum from the date of petition till payment. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, M. F. A. Nos. 3600 and 3601 of 2004 are allowed in part as indicated above. ( 9 ) ONE Sunita is the deceased in M. V. C. No. 245 of 2002. Mother is the petitioner. The deceased is a spinster. Her income to be assessed at Rs. 1,500 per month. As per unit system, 50 per cent to be defrayed towards personal expenses. Total loss of dependency would be (Rs. 750 x 12 x 14 multiplier), i. e. , Rs. 1,26,000. Petitioner is entitled to a further sum of Rs. 10,000 for loss of expectancy and Rs. 3,000 for funeral expenses. This court in Gulam Khader v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , 2001 ACJ 163 (Karnataka), has held that in case of death of a bachelor/spinster, the compensation for loss to estate shall not be a conventional figure. Therefore, 10 per cent of the amount earmarked for personal expenses could be taken as the savings of the deceased. The total loss to estate would be Rs. 12,000. Ltd. , 2001 ACJ 163 (Karnataka), has held that in case of death of a bachelor/spinster, the compensation for loss to estate shall not be a conventional figure. Therefore, 10 per cent of the amount earmarked for personal expenses could be taken as the savings of the deceased. The total loss to estate would be Rs. 12,000. In all, petitioner is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1,51,000 with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of petition till payment as against rs. 2,23,000 awarded by the Tribunal. ( 10 ) ACCORDINGLY, M. F. A. No. 3606 of 2004 is allowed in part as indicated above. ( 11 ) PETITIONER in M. V. C. No. 246 of 2002 sustained burn injuries on the left ear, head, both hands, legs and back. Total extent of burn injuries amounts to 30 per cent to 40 per cent. Keeping in view the nature of injuries and scars and disfigurement the compensation awarded at Rs. 55,000 is sound and proper and does not call for reduction. However, interest is reduced to 6 per cent per annum from the date of petition till payment. ( 12 ) ACCORDINGLY, M. F. A. No. 3608 of 2004 is allowed in part as indicated above. ( 13 ) PETITIONER in M. V. C. No. 247 of 2002 is a minor and sustained burn injuries. She has sustained 25 per cent burn injuries. The photographs are produced. It shows heavy disfigurement and scar marks all over the body. The compensation in a sum of Rs. 65,000 is inadequate and does not call for reduction. Therefore, the interest at 8 per cent per annum granted need not be disturbed. ( 14 ) ACCORDINGLY, M. F. A. No. 3609 of 2004 is dismissed. ( 15 ) PETITIONER in M. V. C. No. 248 of 2002 has sustained 20 per cent of the burn injuries as per the wound certificate Exh. P34. The compensation of Rs. 40,000 awarded is just and proper and does not call for interference. However, interest is reduced to 6 per cent per annum from the date of petition till payment. ( 16 ) ACCORDINGLY, M. F. A. No. 3611 of 2004 is allowed in part as indicated above. The amount in deposit to be transferred to the Tribunal for payment. Orders accordingly.