Judgment Heard. 2. Aggrieved by the lesser compensation awarded by the learned Member of M.A.C.T., Parbhani, the present Appeal is preferred by the original claimant. 3. The appellant was travelling by an autorickshaw bearing No.MCB-5619 in Parbhani on 22.1.1991. At that time, the auto-rickshaw driver i.e. present respondent no.1 Jahiruddin was driving the same. The contention of the appellant is that the auto-rickshaw met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the said autorickshaw. In the accident, she suffered 65% permanent disability due to the compound fracture of tibia and fibula to lower left side. In the circumstances, she claimed compensation against the rickshaw driver-owner. As the rickshaw was insured with respondent no.2 the National Insurance Company, compensation is also claimed against it. Though the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-was claimed, the learned Member of the M.A.C.T. came to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs. 40,000/-with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The learned Member however, observed that the petitioner was also guilty of contributory negligence and therefore 50% of the compensation was awarded. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant has preferred the present Appeal for enhancement of the same. She also assailed the finding of the learned Member that she was contributory negligent. 4. Since no appeal is preferred by either of the respondents, the finding of the learned Member of the M.A.C.T. that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the rickshaw driver, has attained finality. 5. Mrs. A.N. Ansari, counsel for the appellant submits that the reasoning given by the learned Member that the petitioner was also contributory negligent in travelling by the rickshaw, is illegal and wrong. She further submits that the whole of the compensation should have been granted by the learned Member. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsels for the respondents supported the reasoning of the learned Member. 7. On the basis of this material, following points arise for my determination: I) Whether the appellant-petitioner can be held contributory negligent in causing of the accident? II) Whether the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper? My answer to point No.(I) and (II) is in the negative. Appeal is partly allowed for the reasons to follow: REASONS : 8. The petitioner was in fact the passenger of the auto-rickshaw. II) Whether the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper? My answer to point No.(I) and (II) is in the negative. Appeal is partly allowed for the reasons to follow: REASONS : 8. The petitioner was in fact the passenger of the auto-rickshaw. The evidence on record as found favour with the learned Member, shows that the appellant alongwith her father was travelling by the auto-rickshaw. At that time, as the respondent no.1 was driving the auto-rickshaw in a great speed, both of them had warned him to take due care and not to drive the vehicle in such a high speed. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the insurer in the trial Court advanced the argument that since these passengers are educated persons, they could have very well persuaded the respondent-driver for driving the auto-rickshaw in a moderate speed and since they do not thought it fit to leave the auto-rickshaw, they are also equally responsible for causing of the accident. Agreeing with the submission, the Tribunal held the appellant contributory negligent. Therefore, 50% of the compensation was deducted. 9. The reasoning, ex-facie is wrong. None of the passengers can be held liable, as despite the warning, the respondent-driver continued to drive the auto-rickshaw in a rash and negligent manner and to cause the accident. In the circumstances, the deduction towards the contributory negligence, cannot be upheld. 10. The learned Member has held the loss to the petitioner at Rs.40,000/-. However, due to the finding arrived at regarding the contributory negligence, the same was deducted and only Rs.14,000/-in addition to Rs.12,000/-already granted towards no-fault liability, were awarded to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 2.12.1993 i.e. from the date of filing of the petition with proportionate costs. 11. The evidence on record shows that the petitioner had suffered compound fracture to left tibia and fibula and therefore, the permanent disability was 65% to that limb, as certified by the competent medical authority. All the factors regarding pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages were considered by the learned Member and ultimately conclusion was drawn that the loss was of Rs.40,000/-. In that view of the matter, no fault can be found with the reasoning of the learned Member, considering the evidence on record. All the factors regarding pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages were considered by the learned Member and ultimately conclusion was drawn that the loss was of Rs.40,000/-. In that view of the matter, no fault can be found with the reasoning of the learned Member, considering the evidence on record. In the circumstances, the petitioner would be entitled for Rs.40,000/-towards the compensation including the amount of Rs.14,000/-, granted by the learned Member. 12. Mr. V.N. Upadhye, learned counsel for respondent no.2 insurer submits that considering the lapse of about 19 years from the date of filing of the petition, grant of interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition, would be atrocious and he therefore, submits that interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the present Appeal may be awarded on the enhanced amount of compensation. The submission, appears reasonable except the rate of interest, as canvassed by him. 13. Considering the facts on record, the compensation is totally enhanced to Rs.40,000/-. The respondent nos.1 and 2 shall jointly and severally liable to pay the enhanced compensation of Rs.14,000/-with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Appeal i.e. on 13.11.1995 till its realization. Appeal disposed of accordingly.