Judgement Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The impugned Award dated 27-10-2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / District Judge, Champawat in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 32 of 2003 has given rise to the filing of these two Appeals Le. A.O. No. 52 of 2005 (Smt. Godavari Devi & others Vs. UP. Road Transport Corporation & another) and A.O. No. 202 of 2005 (Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Godavari Devi & others). 2. A.O. No. 52 of 2005 is ::It the behest of the claimants for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, whereas A.O. No. 202 of 2005 is preferred by the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (owner of the Bus) against the Award. 3. The claimants, who are unfortunate widow and minor children of deceased Jagdish Chandra Joshi, claimed compensation of Rs. 8,80,000/- for his death in the motor accident on 12-05-2003 when the Roadways Bus bearing registration No. UP 02-B-7357, in which he was travelling from Lohaghat to Tanakpur, met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of its driver and fell in a gorge resulting in his instantaneous death on the spot itself. The claimants pleaded that deceased Jagdish Chandra Joshi used to earn Rs. 4,000/- per month. 4. The owner of the Bus (U.P.S.R.T.C.) contested the claim and denied its liability to pay compensation to the claimants on the plea that the accident did not occur due to the negligence of the driver of the Bus. 5. The claimants examined PW1 Netra Ram, PW2 Smt. Godavari Devi and PW3 Kirti Chand Bagauli in support of their claim, whereas the Transport Corporation examined the driver of the Bus Ganesh Dutt Tewari as DW 1. 6. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties, held that Jagdish Chandra Joshi died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 12-052003; the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bus; and U.P.S.R.T.C., being the owner of the Bus, was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 7. Finding the evidence led by the claimants about the income of the deceased unreliable, the Tribunal assessed his income at Rs. 15,000/- per annum on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-Aof the Motor Vehicles Act. 7. Finding the evidence led by the claimants about the income of the deceased unreliable, the Tribunal assessed his income at Rs. 15,000/- per annum on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-Aof the Motor Vehicles Act. After deducting 1/3m of the income of the deceased as his personal expenses, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs. 10,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 10,000/- with the multiplier of '13', the compensation was worked out to Rs. 1,30,000/-. The Tribunal awarded further sums of Rs. 5,000/- towards Loss of Consortium to the widow and Rs. 2,000/- towards Funeral Expenses and thus, a total sum of Rs. 1,37,000/was awarded as compensation to the claimants for the death of Jagdish Chandra Joshi in the motor accident. The Tribunal, further, directed the Transport Corporation to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum in the event of its failure to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants within a period of two months from the date of the Award. 8. Mr. M.C. Pan de, the learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs. 15,000/- per annum only; in awarding lower compensation of Rs. 1,37,0001- only; and in not awarding any interest on the amount of compensation to the claimants and in directing a conditional payment of interest in the event of failure to pay compensation to the claimants within a period of two months of the passing of the Award. 9. Mr. A.N. Sharma, the learned counsel for the Transport Corporation, on the other hand, submitted that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bus; in selecting the higher multiplier of '13'; and in directing payment of interest at the higher rate of 9% per annum. 10. The claimants examined PW1 Netra Ram as the eye-witness of the accident, in which, Jagdish Chandra Joshi lost his life. This witness was also travelling in the said Bus. On a thorough examination of his evidence, we are satisfied that the Tribunal has rightly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bus. This witness was also travelling in the said Bus. On a thorough examination of his evidence, we are satisfied that the Tribunal has rightly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bus. We, therefore, affirm the finding recorded by the Tribunal in that behalf. 11. As the Transport Corporation is the owner of the said Bus and the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bus, the TransP9rt Corporation is liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The finding recorded by the Tribunal in that behalf, therefore, is hereby affirmed. 12. The claimants pleaded that deceased Jagdish Chandra Joshi used to earn Rs. 4,0001- per month. The claimants examined PW3 Kirti Chand Bagauli, the owner of the Printing Press, where the deceased was working as an Assistant. PW3 Kirti Chand Bagauli has categorically stated that the deceased was being paid Rs. 85/- per day. In this state of evidence, the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs. 15,000/- per annum on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act deserves to be reconsidered. That apart, the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was prescribed in the year 1994. The accident, in the present case, took place in the year 2003. If the depreciation in the purchase value of the rupee during the period between 1994 to 2003 is taken into account, the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum prescribed in the year 1994 would come, in the year 2003, to Rs. 30,0001- per annum. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 30,0001- per annum. 13. By deducting 113m of Rs. 30,0001- as the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs. 20,0001- per annum. 14. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that the compensation tp be awarded by the Tribunal I Court should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court, in the case of T.N. State Transport Corpn. Ltd. Vs. 20,0001- per annum. 14. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that the compensation tp be awarded by the Tribunal I Court should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court, in the case of T.N. State Transport Corpn. Ltd. Vs. S. Rajapriya and others reported in (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 236, observed in paras 8 to 10 & 17 : "8. The assessment of damages to compensate the dependents is beset with difficulties because from the nature of things, it has to take into account many imponderables e.g. the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependants, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount that he would have contributed to the dependants during that period, the chances that the deceased may not have lived or the dependants may not live up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that the deceased might have got better employment or income or might have lost his employment or income together. 9. The manner of arriving at the damages is to ascertain the net income of the deceased available for the support of himself and his dependants, and to deduct there from such part of his income as the deceased was accustomed to spend upon himself, as regards both self-maintenance and pleasure, and to ascertain what part of his net income the deceased was accustomed to spend for the benefit of the dependants. Then that should be capitalised by multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number of years' purchase. 10. Much of the calculation necessarily remains in the realm of hypothesis "and in that region arithmetic is a good servant but a bad master" since there are so often many imponderables. In every case "it is the overall picture that matters", and the court must try to assess as best as it can the loss suffered. 17. . Considering the age of the deceased and the principles indicated above, the appropriate multiplier would be 12 and not 16 as adopted by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court. By applying multiplier 12, amount of compensation is fixed at Rs. 4,50,000 (in round figures).. ... ......." 15. The Tribunal selected the multiplier of '13' considering the age of the deceased and the claimants. By applying multiplier 12, amount of compensation is fixed at Rs. 4,50,000 (in round figures).. ... ......." 15. The Tribunal selected the multiplier of '13' considering the age of the deceased and the claimants. Deceased Jagdish Chandra Joshi was aged about 45 years at the time of the accident. His widow Smt. Godavari Devi was shown to be 40 years of age in the claim petition, whereas the two minor daughters were aged about 11 years and 15 years and the two minor sons were aged about 6 years and 10 years. Considering the age of the deceased, his widow, minor daughters and minor sons and the claimants' dependency assessed hereinabove, we are of the opinion that multiplier of '12' would be appropriate in the case. 16. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 20,000/- with the multiplier of '12', the compensation works out to Rs. 2,40,000/-. By adding further sums of Rs. 5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards Loss of Consortium to the widow and Rs. 2,000/- towards Funeral Expenses, the total compensation works out to Rs. 2,47,000/-. 17. The Tribunal has fallen into error in not awarding any interest to the claimants on the amount of compensation. By directing only a conditional payment of interest in the event of failure to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants within a period of two months from the date of the Award, the Tribunal has deprived the claimants of the amount of interest, which was otherwise payable to them. To avoid any possible delay in the computation of the amount of interest by the Claims Tribunal, we deem it proper to quantify the amount ourselves. The claim petition, in the present case, was filed on 19-06-2003. The impugned Award was passed on 2710-2004. The Transport Corporation has deposited the amount awarded by the Tribunal on 0405-2005. The amount of compensation is being enhanced today on 09-10-2006. Considering the above-mentioned relevant factors, we quantify the amount of interest at Rs. 33,000/-. 18. Thus, the claimants become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs. 2,80,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Eighty Thousand only) [Rs. 2,47,000/- as Compensation + Rs.33,000/- as Interest]. 19. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the claimants (A.O. No. 52 of 2005) is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs. 33,000/-. 18. Thus, the claimants become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs. 2,80,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Eighty Thousand only) [Rs. 2,47,000/- as Compensation + Rs.33,000/- as Interest]. 19. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the claimants (A.O. No. 52 of 2005) is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs. 1,37,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Thirty Seven Thousand only) awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 2,47,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Forty Seven Thousand only) with further amount of interest quantified at Rs. 33,000/(Rupees Thirty Three Thousand only). 20. With the above modification of the impugned Award, the appeal filed by U.P.S.R.T.C. (A.O. No. 202 of 2005) also stands disposed of. 21. The Transport Corporation has already deposited, in the Registry, Rs. 1,12,000/on 04-05-2005. Asum of Rs. 25,000/- was deposited as mandatory deposit under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act while filing the appeal against the Award. The Transport Corporation, therefore, is directed to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 1,43,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Forty Three Thousand only) within a period of three months from today before the concerning Claims Tribunal. The amount of Rs. 1,12,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Twelve Thousand only) deposited by the Transport Corporation on 04-05-2005 and the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only), deposited as mandatory deposit while filing the appeal, be transmitted to the concerning Claims Tribunal immediately. 22. No order as to costs. * * *