JUDGMENT Samvatsar, J. -- 1. Both these appeals arise out of the award dated 27.2.1999 passed by Ninth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 96/97. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 319/99 is filed by the Insurance Company while Miscellaneous Appeal No. 412/99 is filed by the claimant. 2. Brief facts of the case are that one Akhilesh Dwivedi has filed the claim petition alleging that on 12.2.1997 at about 11:00 in the morning he was going on his motorcycle No. MP 07 KA 3542 from Gwalior to Morena. Ramesh alias Suresh Jain was sitting as pillion rider on the said motorcycle. When they reached near Banmore on A.B. road, truck No. MPW 4758 which was driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1 Kalyan Singh dashed against him which caused him injuries. His spinal cord was completely damaged in the said accident and he has got injuries on various parts of his body. He filed the application for compensation alleging that the said injury has resulted in 100% permanent disablement. He is completely bed ridden and there are no chances of recovery. He was brought on stretcher for giving statement in the Court and the Claims Tribunal has recorded this fact at the time of his deposition. He was examined as PW 5 in the Court. Non-applicant No.3 Insurance Company has filed its written statement denying the allegations made in the claim petition. Non-applicants 1 and 2 remained ex parte and non-applicant No.3 alone filed the written statement. Non-applicant No.3 has also obtained permission from the Claims Tribunal to contest the claim under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Claims Tribunal after recording the evidence found that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the non-applicant No. 1 and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 14,03,880/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Claims Tribunal also observed that in case the award is not paid within three months, the interest will be 18% per annum. 3. Claimant preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No. 412/99 alleging that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on the lower side while Insurance Company preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No. 319/99 on the ground that the claimant himself was negligent and the accident has occurred due to his rash and negligent driving. 3. Claimant preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No. 412/99 alleging that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on the lower side while Insurance Company preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No. 319/99 on the ground that the claimant himself was negligent and the accident has occurred due to his rash and negligent driving. It is also urged that the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on the higher side. 4. Both the parties were heard at length. 5. Counsel for the Insurance Company urged that in the present case, both, the claimant as well as driver of the truck had contributed in the negligence and, therefore, the claimant should also be held responsible for the accident. 6. To appreciate this argument it is necessary to refer to the evidence on record. 7. To prove his case, the claimant has examined Suresh Chandra as A W 2 who was pillion rider. He has stated in his deposition that on 12.2.1997 at about 11 :00 in the morning he was going on the motorcycle MP 07 KA 3542 with Ahilesh. They were going to Morena. Akhilesh was driving the motorcycle. The speed of the motorcycle was 20-25 km/ph and Akhilesh was driving the motorcycle in a slow speed. As soon as they reached near the Railway Station, Banmore they saw a truck coming from the opposite side. He has seen the truck when it was 100-150 yards away from the motorcycle a bus was also coming from the opposite side. The truck was behind the bus and when the truck tried to overtake the bus, the truck came on the wrong side and dashed the motorcycle. Akhilesh got injuries and became unconscious. Report was lodged by this witness which is Ex. P-2. He further admitted that Akhilesh got the spinal cord fractured in the accident. Akhilesh was working in Pulse Green Forest Limited and was earning Rs. 17,000-18,000/- per month. In para 9 of his deposition he has stated that when the truck overtook the bus the distance between the truck and the motorcycle was neary 75 meters. He has denied the suggestion that the truck after overtaking the bus has come to the right side and as Akhilesh was on the wrong side the accident took place. He has denied the suggestion in para 11 that the truck driver was not negligent in the accident. He has denied the suggestion that the truck after overtaking the bus has come to the right side and as Akhilesh was on the wrong side the accident took place. He has denied the suggestion in para 11 that the truck driver was not negligent in the accident. He has further stated that Akhilesh could not take the motorcycle in the side as there were big ditches on the road side. 8. Next witness on the question of negligence is the claimant himself who is examined as AW 5. This witness was brought in the Court on a stretcher and he gave his statement by lying on the stretcher in the Court. He has stated that the accident took place at 11 :00 a.m. on 12.2.1997. He says that he was going on the motorcycle. He was on the right side and in slow speed. Suresh Chandra was sitting on the back seat. When they reached near Banmore, truck No. MPW 4758 which was coming in a high speed overtook the bus and while overtaking came on the wrong side and dashed the motorcycle, due to which he got injuries. In para 16 of his statement, he has stated that he was driving the motorcycle leaving a gap of five feet from the edge of the road. He has seen the truck while overtaking the bus. He further says that he could not take the motorcycle on the road side as there were big ditches and heap of boulders was lying on the side of the road. He has denied that he was negligent or due to his negligence the accident has occurred. In para 15 he says that the road was 20-25 feet wide and the truck was in the middle of the road. He has seen the truck from a distance of 50 feet. Truck did not blow horn while overtaking the bus. He further says that it was appearing that there was competition between the truck and the bus. Both were in very high speed. 9. Insurance Company has not examined any witness to rebut the evidence led by the claimant. Division Bench of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. He further says that it was appearing that there was competition between the truck and the bus. Both were in very high speed. 9. Insurance Company has not examined any witness to rebut the evidence led by the claimant. Division Bench of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ayesha Begum and others [ 1995 ACJ 587 ] and number of judgments has taken a view that if driver of the offending vehicle is not examined in rebuttal, then the Court should draw an inference that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. 10. Counsel for the Insurance Company tried to urge that as the claimant himself and Suresh Chandra (AW 2) have stated that they have seen the truck coming to their direction, they had an opportunity to avoid the accident. They could have taken the motorcycle on the road side and accident could have been avoided. As they have not taken any steps for avoiding the accident, the claimant himself shall be held responsible for the accident. 11. From perusal of the evidence on record, we are not inclined to accept this argument because claimant Akhilesh (AW 5) and Suresh Chandra (AW 2) themselves have clearly stated that there was no room for them to get on the road side. A heap of "murum" was lying there and there were big ditches on the side of the road. The truck while overtaking the bus had come on the wrong side, therefore, there was no opportunity for them to avoid the accident. Their statement are not rebutted by any evidence. In the circumstances, the finding arrived at by the Claims Tribunal that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck drive cannot be interfered with. 12. Now so far as the question of quantum is concerned, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total sum of Rs. 14,03,880/- towards the compensation. Out of this amount, an amount of Rs. 6,48,000/- was awarded towards loss of income, Rs. 50,000/- towards pains and suffering, Rs. 50,000/- towards attendance charges and travelling expenses and remaining amount towards medical expenses. 13. First contention raised by the counsel for the Insurance Company is that as per Schedule under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, Tribunal has no jurisdiction to award compensation above Rs. 15,000/against one head. 50,000/- towards pains and suffering, Rs. 50,000/- towards attendance charges and travelling expenses and remaining amount towards medical expenses. 13. First contention raised by the counsel for the Insurance Company is that as per Schedule under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, Tribunal has no jurisdiction to award compensation above Rs. 15,000/against one head. This argument cannot be accepted. In the present case, claimant has filed medical bills Ex. P-201 to P-565. At the same time, he has also submitted large number of bills alongwith his application under Order XLI Rule 27, CPC towards treatment during the pendency of the appeal. Total amount of these bills comes to Rs. 9,84,465/-. It has come on record by the observation of the Court as well as statement of the doctor examined as AW 3 and AW 4 Dr. Raju Vaishya and Dr. R.S. Sengar respectively that the spinal cord of the claimant has completely damaged. He is not in a position to stand up or sit and he is constantly lying on the bed for all these years. The claimant was brought on a stretcher in the Court and his statement was recorded by lying on the table of the Court. This shows that this accident has resulted in 100% permanent disablement to the claimant. 14. Claimant's witness Suresh Chandra (AW 2) has stated that the claimant was earning Rs. 17,000-18,000/- per month. The Court assessed his income at Rs. 3,000/- per month on the ground that the documents on record show that even after his illness he was getting some commission. The Court found that earlier to the accident, the claimant was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month and while after the accident, he was getting commission of around Rs. 5,000/- per month and thus assessed his loss of income at Rs. 3,000/- per month. From perusal of the record, it appears that the amount received vide vouchers Ex. P-566 to Ex. P-591 was towards commission for the business conducted by him prior to the injuries and, therefore, it does not reflect the correct compensation of his income. This income is going to be diminished by year to year as the claimant is now not in a position to work any more and earn business for the company in which he was working. Considering this fact, we assess his loss of income at Rs. This income is going to be diminished by year to year as the claimant is now not in a position to work any more and earn business for the company in which he was working. Considering this fact, we assess his loss of income at Rs. 5,000/- per month and yearly loss of income comes to Rs. 60,000/-. Claimant was 28 years of age at the time of accident. Therefore, considering the fact that he has suffered 100% permanent disablement and applying the multiplier of 18, compensation towards loss of income comes to Rs. 10,80,000/-. Apart from this amount, claimant will be entitled to Rs. 10,00,000/- towards medical treatment. He has already submitted bills worth Rs. 9,84,465/-. He is also entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering and travelling expenses. Thus total compensation is assessed at Rs. 21,80,000/- (Rs. twenty-one lac eight thousand only). As regards interest is concerned, the Claims Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum with a rider that if the amount is not paid within three months, the claimants shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 15% per annum. This view is not in accordance with law. It is, therefore, directed that the claimants shall be entitled to interest on the amount of compensation at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date of filing of the application till realisation. Amount, if any, paid by the Insurance Company shall be adjusted in the amount awarded. 15. In the result, Miscellaneous Appeal No. 319/99 filed by the Insurance Company fails and is dismissed and Miscellaneous Appeal No. 412/99 filed by the claimant is allowed and the compensation is enhanced to the extent indicated hereinabove.