JUDGMENT K. Sreedhar Rao, J.—Sri. S.S. Patil 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 KSRTC 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. The tribunal has awarded compensation to the petitioners and directed the NEKRTC to pay the compensation. Hence, the appeal. 3. Sri. D. Vijayakumar, the Counsel for the appellants 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 Supreme Court in Samir Chanda Vs. Managing Director, Assam State TPT. Corpn., (1998) 6 AD SC 406 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 tortuous liability. In that view, fastening of liability on the part of the appellant by the tribunal is sound and proper. 5. The assumed reason of state of normalcy is not a ground to exonerate the tortuous liability. In that view, fastening of liability on the part of the appellant by the tribunal is sound and proper. 5. Petitioner in MVC No. 369/2002 sustained burn injuries on the right leg, left leg, hand, elbow and foot. The deep burns are to the extent of 40%, 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% p.a. from the date of petition till payment as against Rs. 96,500/- awarded by the tribunal. 6. Accordingly, MFA 7094/2004 is allowed in part as indicated above. MFA Crob. No. 239/2005 is dismissed. 7. Petitioners in MVC Nos. 381 and 382 of 2002 have also sustained burn injuries. The compensation of Rs. 20000/- 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% p.a. from the date of petition till payment 8. Accordingly, MFA Nos. 3600 and 3601 of 2004 are allowed in part as indicated above. 9. One Sunita is the deceased in MVC No. 245/2002. 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% 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. 10000/- for loss of expectancy and Rs. 3,000/- for funeral expenses. This Court in Gulam Khader's case repotted in ILR 2000 SC 4416 (United India Insurance Co Ltd. v. Gulam Khader), has held that in case of death of a bachelor/spiaster, the compensation for loss of estate shall not be a conventional figure. Therefore, 10% of the amount earmarked for personal expenses could be taken as the savings of the deceased. The total loss of estate would be Rs. 12,000/-. In all, petitioner is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1,51,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till payment as against Rs. 2,23/XX)/- awarded by the tribunal. 10. Accordingly, MFA No. 3606/2004 is allowed in part as indicated above, 11. The total loss of estate would be Rs. 12,000/-. In all, petitioner is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1,51,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till payment as against Rs. 2,23/XX)/- awarded by the tribunal. 10. Accordingly, MFA No. 3606/2004 is allowed in part as indicated above, 11. Petitioner in MVC No. 246/2002 sustained burn injuries on the left ear, head, both hands, legs and back. Total extent of burn injuries accounts to 30% to 40%, 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% p.a. from the date of petition till payment. 12. Accordingly, MFA No. 3608/2004 is allowed in part as indicated above. 13. Petitioner in MVC No. 247/ 2002 is a minor and sustained burn injuries. She has sustained 25% 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% p.a. granted need not be disturbed. 14. Accordingly, MFA No. 3609/2004 is dismissed. 15. Petitioner in MVC No. 248/2002 has sustained 20% of the burn injuries as per the wound certificate exhibit P34. The compensation of Rs. 40,000/- awarded is just and proper and does not call for interference. However, interest is reduced to 6% p.a. from the date of petition till payment. 16. Accordingly, MFA No. 3611/2004 is allowed in part as indicated above. The amount in deposit to Be transferred to the tribunal for payment.