JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 13.4.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand ('the Tribunal'), whereby for death of one Govind Ram, the Tribunal has awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 75,000/- to the claimant, who is father of the deceased. 2. Brief facts of the case may be noticed thus : the deceased alongwith other co-passengers were traveling in a bus, when the bus struck a bridge and turned turtle, which resulted in injuries to several passengers, to which the son of the appellant Govind Ram succumbed. 3. The application for compensation was filed by the appellant seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,72,000/-, inter alia, on the basis that the deceased was involved in the painting work and used to earn Rs. 100/- per day and used to spend about Rs. 500/- per month and the father was dependent on him. The appellant was examined as AW-24 and was cross-examined, wherein suggestion was made to him that he was earning Rs. 60/- per day. 4. The Tribunal considering the fact that the age of the deceased was 25 years, he was involved in the painting work and the claimant-father was aged about 64 years, awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 75,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of application. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that sum of Rs. 75,000/- as a lump sum compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meagre and looking to the fact that the deceased was aged 25 years and the appellant was wholly dependent on him, the Tribunal should have awarded just and reasonable compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, wherein the claimant is aged 64 years and the deceased was unmarried, the amount awarded is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the minimum wages at the relevant point of time was Rs. 32/- per day and Rs. 832/- per month and therefore, the Tribunal was justified in awarding a sum of Rs. 75,000/-. It is also prayed that if the amount of compensation is enhanced, no interest be awarded. 8. I have considered the rival submissions. 9. 32/- per day and Rs. 832/- per month and therefore, the Tribunal was justified in awarding a sum of Rs. 75,000/-. It is also prayed that if the amount of compensation is enhanced, no interest be awarded. 8. I have considered the rival submissions. 9. Admittedly, the deceased was aged 25 years and though it was claimed in the claim application that the claimant was aged 55 years, in the memo of appeal, the age of the claimant has been indicated as 63 years in the year 2000, the said claimant would now be aged about 76 years. The fact that appellant lost a young son at the advanced age, the Tribunal has not awarded any sum for the loss of expectation of life, mental agony and funeral expenses. The amount awarded for loss of income, though may be justified in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. : (2009) 6 SCC 121 : ( AIR 2009 SC 3104 ) , the aspect of loss (supra) to the appellant has not been taken into consideration at all and in view of the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir & Ors. : 2013 ACJ 1403 , the appellant is entitled to a further lump sum of Rs. 75,000/- towards loss of expectation of life, mental agony and funeral expenses specially in view of the fact that there appears to be no other family member except for deceased unmarried son. 10. The argument raised by learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company based on minimum wages is exfacie baseless. The very fact that a question is put to the claimant that the deceased was earning only Rs. 60/- per day necessarily means it is the case of the respondent itself that he was earning Rs. 60/- per day. 11. So far as the argument raised by learned counsel for the respondent regarding grant of interest on the enhanced amount is concerned, in view of the provision of Section 171 of the Act, the grant of interest is consequential only, however, in the changed circumstance, the same is reduced from 12% as awarded by the Tribunal to 6% p.a. 12. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The award impugned is modified to the extent that the appellant would be entitled to a further sum of Rs. 75,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. on the said amount from the date of application i.e. 22.4.1996. The amount be paid in cash to the appellant and would not be placed in Fixed Deposit. No costs.Appeal partly allowed. *******