Judgment H.K. Rathod, J.—Heard learned Advocate Mr. Sunil B. Parikh for learned Advocate Mr. Rajni H. Mehta for appellants - owner and insurance Company and learned Advocate Mr. Tulsi R. Savani for respondent original claimant Pravinsinh Patubha Chudasama. 2. By filing this appeal, appellants are challenging the award made by motor accident claims Tribunal at Bhavnagar in Claim Petition No. 492 of 1994 dated 6th September, 1996 wherein claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 6,00,000.00 in favour of respondent claimant with interest thereon at the rate of 15 per cent per annum and proportionate costs. 3. Learned Advocate Mr. Parikh for appellants raised contention that the claims Tribunal has committed gross error in coming to conclusion that the accident has taken place due to jeep No. GUQ-9382. He also submitted that the claims Tribunal has not properly appreciated the fact that the injured Luna Driver himself was negligent and accident was caused due to his own negligence. He submitted that the jeep driver was driving his jeep on the absolute correct side and claims Tribunal has yet given contrary finding to the effect that the jeep driver was absolutely on wrong side of road. He submitted that the claims Tribunal has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the accident was caused to the sole negligence on the part of jeep driver. He submitted that the claims Tribunal has not properly appreciated facts on record, not properly applied mind and awarded higher amount of compensation. He submitted that the award of interest made by claims Tribunal is also on higher side and not sustainable in law and it is liable to be set aside as penal rate of interest. 4. On the other hand, learned Advocate Mr. Savani for respondents claimants made submissions while supporting impugned award. He submitted that the claims Tribunal has rightly passed award and has rightly examined matter while considering question of negligence and just and proper compensation has been awarded by claims tribunal. He submitted that claimant had received 70% disability and for 11 times, he was operated and considering all these aspects, award made by claims Tribunal is quite just, reasonable and proper requiring no interference of this court. He also submitted that the award of interest is also just and proper and would not require any interference. 5. I have considered submissions made by learned advocates for parties. He also submitted that the award of interest is also just and proper and would not require any interference. 5. I have considered submissions made by learned advocates for parties. I have also perused impugned award made by claims tribunal. Looking to the facts as emerging from record, claimant is having one cabin in Jail Ground, Bhavnagar wherein he is doing the business of grains, kirana and cold drinks and pan bidi etc. His monthly income was about Rs. 3000.00. He is having wife, three daughters and one son. His whole family was depending on his income. On the day of incident 20.8.1994, at about 5.30 hours of the evening, he had gone on his Luna from his Cabin near to ST Bus Stand for filling petrol in Luna and in view of Raksha Bandhan festival coming on next day, he had gone in village on Luna for making purchase and he was going towards Ganga Jalia lake from ST Bus Stand and when he reached near Panwadi Chowk near Ayurvedik Hospital and Hospital while driving his Luna carefully slowly on its correct side when Sadikbhai was sitting on Luna as pillion rider, at that time, one jeep came from opposite side bearing No. GUQ 382 driven by driver of it rashly negligently on wrong side and dashed with Luna of claimant. Consequently, Sadikbhai and claimant bodh had thrown on road and claimant had received serious injury and were admitted in Sir T. Hospital wherein claimant had received serious injury. He had suffered fracture in both leg and had to undergone treatment for long time and had incurred huge expenditure for treatment and now due to that, business which he had been doing had been stopped completely and has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 70 per cent and he is unable to do his day to day work by himself and, therefore, he filed claim petition claiming compensation. 6. Reply to claim petition was filed by insurance company at Exh. 20 and Respondents No. 1 and 2 filed reply at Exh. 31. Issues were framed by claims Tribunal at Exh. 20. Certain documents were produced on record by claimant as considered by claims Tribunal in Para 8. In Para 10, claims Tribunal considered issue no.1 and answered it in affirmative by holding that there was negligence on the part of jeep driver in driving jeep. 31. Issues were framed by claims Tribunal at Exh. 20. Certain documents were produced on record by claimant as considered by claims Tribunal in Para 8. In Para 10, claims Tribunal considered issue no.1 and answered it in affirmative by holding that there was negligence on the part of jeep driver in driving jeep. Detailed description of incident given by claimant in his deposition was believed by claims Tribunal considering length of road from east to west and width from north to south. Claims Tribunal considered that there is ST Stand on western side and towrds eastern side, there is lake of Gangajalia lake of Bhavnagar. Claimant was going from west to east whereas jeep was being driven by its driver from east to west. Panchanama of the scene of offence produced at Exh. 35 was considered by claims Tribunal and then it was observed by claims Tribunal that the jeep driver should have driven his jeep on the southern side of road and road is 30 ft. wide having divider between, means, road is divided by 15:15 ft. In such circumstances, as observed by claims tribunal, jeep driver ought to have driven his jeep on the southern side divider and considering panchanama Exh.35,it was observed that he had driven his jeep on wrong side and in that manner, entered on the divider towards northern side and dashed Luna at the distance of 2 ft. Considering all these things as narrated in panchanama Exh. 35, which was not challenged by jeep driver or appellant insurance company, claims Tribunal held that there was negligence and carelessness on the part of jeep driver in driving jeep and, therefore, accident occurred. According to my opinion, such findings about negligence of jeep driver are based on appreciation of evidence on record namely panchanama Exh. 35 and evidence of claimant and, therefore, claims Tribunal was right in holding that there was sole negligence of jeep driver. Therefore, contentions raised by learned Advocate Mr. Parikh as regards findings of claims Tribunal on the issue of negligence cannot be accepted and same are, therefore, rejected. 7. As regards submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. Parikh for appellant that the amount awarded is on higher side, claims Tribunal has considered that the claimant suffered fracture of tibia and fibula on his right leg and bone had turned into pieces. 7. As regards submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. Parikh for appellant that the amount awarded is on higher side, claims Tribunal has considered that the claimant suffered fracture of tibia and fibula on his right leg and bone had turned into pieces. In left leg also, there was compound fracture and bone of right leg was turned into various pieces as mentioned in discharge card Exh. 36. He was given treatment in Sir T Hospital from 20.8.94 to 26.10.94 and during that period, in hospital, total four operations were performed on him as mentioned in Exh. 36 and rod and plat was implanted and skin grafting was also done. Thereafter, he had gone in Irwin Group of Hospitals at Jamnagar for further treatment and had taken further treatment there as mentioned in Para 12 of award. Claimant had also taken treatment from Orthopedic Surgeon Dr. Vakharia at Jamnagar and he was examined by Dr. Vakharia and thereafter, Dr. Vakharia had written letter to Orthopedic Surgeon of Bhavnagar wherein line of treatment was informed by Dr. Vakharia which letter Exh. 40 was also considered by claims tribunal. After coming back from Jamnagar, he had taken further treatment from Dr.Dinkar Dholakia, Orthopedic Surgeon of Bhavnagar for one month and two days and there was septic in both of his legs and therefore, he was admitted in the hospital of Orthopedic Surgeon of Bhavnagar Dr.Sanjay Parikh on 1.12.94 and in said hospital, he was operated on different seven occasions. Skin grafting and bone grafting was done on him and prolonged painful treatment was given to him, continued upto 6.8.1996, as considered by claims Tribunal in Para 14 of award. Claims Tribunal has also considered that yet treatment is going on, he has been brought before claims Tribunal by two persons and, therefore, on the basis of such self speaking voluminous evidence on record, claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,75,000.00 towards fees of doctor, medical treatment, expenses for medicines, transportation costs, nutritious food and other miscellaneous expenditure which cannot be considered to be on higher side in any manner. Considering 11 operations performed on the body of claimant at different point of time as discussed by claims Tribunal in Para 14 and 15 of award. Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,75,000.00 towards fees of doctor, medical treatment, expenses for medicines, transportation costs, nutritious food and other miscellaneous expenditure which cannot be considered to be on higher side in any manner. Considering 11 operations performed on the body of claimant at different point of time as discussed by claims Tribunal in Para 14 and 15 of award. Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 75000.00 for mental pains, shock and suffering considering the fact that the bone of his right leg was turned into eleven pieces and he suffered compound fracture on his left leg which also cannot be considered to be on higher side in any manner since the claimant will have to survive with such disability. Claimant is not able to do any type of work as considered by claims Tribunal in Para 16 of award. Claims Tribunal considered prospective income of claimant at Rs. 3000.00 and also considered that the claimant has suffered 70 per cent permanent disability which could be considered 35 per cent permanent disability for body as a whole and, therefore, considered that claimant is suffering loss at the rate of 35%, of Rs. 1050.00 x12=12,600 per year x 15 multiplier = Rs. 1,89,000.00 as loss of future income plus Rs. 75000.00 for his having remained complete bed ridden for about 25 months and thus, claims Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 6,00,000.00 on different heads which cannot be considered to be on higher side. According to my opinion, compensation awarded by claims Tribunal is reasonable, just and proper compensation. 8. According to my opinion, when victim of a vehicular accident has succumbed to injuries and has expired, then, there should be different standards for considering quantum of compensation and when victim of vehicular accident has survived with all disabilities earned by him because of such accident, standards for considering quantum in such case should be different than the case wherein victim has died because of accident. Therefore, in view of facts of this case as considered by claims tribunal, considering injuries suffered by claimant and also considering operations undergone by claimant and prolonged treatment of claimant and permanent disability suffered by claimant as considered by claims tribunal, according to my opinion, amount awarded by claims Tribunal cannot be considered on higher side in any manner and same is quite just, proper and reasonable. Therefore, contentions raised by learned Advocate Mr. Therefore, contentions raised by learned Advocate Mr. Parikh in this regard also cannot be accepted and same are therefore, rejected. 9. As regards contention of learned Advocate Mr. Parikh for appellant regarding award of interest on the amount of compensation, accident occurred in the year 1994. Claims Tribunal directed that the amount of Rs. 600000.00 be paid by opponents jointly and severally with 15 per cent interest with proportionate costs while clarifying that if the amount is deposited within six months, then, opponents are entitled to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent. Normally, at that time, 12 per cent interest was available even if he invest any amount in scheduled or nationalized bank, therefore, award of rate of interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum is on higher side and same is required to be modified by directing appellant to pay interest only at 12 per cent per annum and claims Tribunal has committed an error in awarding interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. Therefore, only on the issue of award of interest, impugned award is required to be modified. Rest of the submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. Parikh for appellant are required to be rejected and are accordingly rejected. 10. In result, this appeal is partly allowed. Award of claims Tribunal to pay interest at the rate of 15 per cent is set aside and it is modified to the effect that the claimant is entitled to have interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the amount of compensation as awarded by claims tribunal. Accordingly present appeal is disposed of. It is open for appellant insurance company to file necessary application before claims Tribunal to get refund of amount as per modification of impugned award on the basis of this order. As and when such application filed by appellant is received by claims tribunal, claims Tribunal shall have to refund the excess amount accordingly on the basis of this order modifying impugned award, by way of an account payee cheque drawn in favour of appellant insurance company. Claims Tribunal Bhavnagar is also directed to pay the remaining amount of compensation as per impugned award as modified by this Court to claimant Pravinsinh Patubha Chudasama by way of account payee cheque drawn in his favour after proper verification. Claims Tribunal Bhavnagar is also directed to pay the remaining amount of compensation as per impugned award as modified by this Court to claimant Pravinsinh Patubha Chudasama by way of account payee cheque drawn in his favour after proper verification. Accordingly this appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.