Judgment K.S. Jhaveri, J.—By way of this appeal, appellant has challenged the order and judgment of the tribunal passed in Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Case No. 355 of 1991. 2. Brief facts leading to filing this petitioner are that, the incident was occurred on 12.07.1991 at about 3:00p.m. The deceased was working as cleaner-cum-mechanic in the public career No. GTS 7922. On that day he was coming to Bhavnagar and Opponent No. 1 was a driver of a career, driving it in rash and negligent manner. Therefore, the deceased fell down and sustained serious injuries on all over his person and he was died on the spot. Hence, the appellants – original claimants filed Claim petition under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Hence, by order dated 14.02.1996, the tribunal has passed order of compensation of Rs. 3,08,000/- with 15% interest from the date of filing of application. 3. The appellants – original respondent prefers this appeal against the same on below mentioned grounds; 1. The judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal are against law, facts and weight or evidence on record. 2. That the learned tribunal’s judgment and award assessing compensation of more than Rs.2,15,000/- are against law, weight or evidence and recent decisions of the Supreme Court reported in 1994 ACJ (1) SC page 1631, AIR 1996 SC Page 1631 and JT Vol. 5 Page 356. 3. The learned Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that the income of the deceased would be Rs. 2,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal failed to take into consideration that the owner himself was a party and he has not come forward to depose or has not brought anything on record to show what was his exact salary which he was paying to the deceased. 4. The learned tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that Rs. 20,000/- should be paid to the claimants on account of loss to the estate. As per the decision reported in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. vs. Trilok Chandra & Ors., (JT Vo. 5 page 356), the Supreme Court has ruled that Rs. 10,000/- should be paid on account of loss to the estate. 5. The learned Tribunal failed again awarding interest @ 15%. The learned tribunal failed to take into consideration the decisions of Supreme Court in General Manager, K.S.R.T.C. vs. Susamma Thoma (AIR SC page 1, Sarla Dixit & Ors. 5 page 356), the Supreme Court has ruled that Rs. 10,000/- should be paid on account of loss to the estate. 5. The learned Tribunal failed again awarding interest @ 15%. The learned tribunal failed to take into consideration the decisions of Supreme Court in General Manager, K.S.R.T.C. vs. Susamma Thoma (AIR SC page 1, Sarla Dixit & Ors. vs. B. Yadav & Ors., JT 1996 (3) SC page 255, National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swarnalata Das, ACJ 1993 SC 748 and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Trilok Chandra & Ors., JT Vol. 5 Page 356). 6. Such other arguments as may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has tried to point out the quantum since the rate of interest is 15% from the date of filing of application. However, if the interest is paid during the stipulated time, it will be 12%. 5. In my view, the compensation awarded by the tribunal requires no interference, except that, interest rate will be only 12% instead of 15%. Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs. P P P P P