JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J. 1. Heard Shri Arun Prakash, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Abhishek Jaiswal holding brief of S.P.S Parmar, learned counsel for the respondent. None appears for the owner. 2. This appeal challenges the judgment and award passed by motor accident claim Tribunal in M.A.C.P No.220 of 2007 (Ramesh Kumar Jaiswal and others versus Rajesh Kumar Kushwaha and another) filed by the parents and sister of the deceased, who died in the accident. The claimant had claimed a sum of Rs.19,80,000/-. The Tribunal awarded 4,72,500/- with 6% rate of interest. 3. The facts are that on 23.3.2007 at about 5.00 P.M near Shankergarh Reewa Road, Manish Kumar @ Shish Kumar got hurt in the Vehicle accident involving vehicle no. U.P 70 A.T 1286 dashed with deceased Manish @ Shish Kumar. The deceased was returning with his motorcycle after performing his duties in the school and due to the serious injuries he died in the hospital. The deceased was aged about 23 years of age. He was a Graduate and was a Computer Mechanic and was earning 10,000/- per month. 4. A first information report came to be lodged. The claimants filed a claim petition. The Insurance Company being impleaded as party respondent no. 2 filed their reply which was one of denial. They denied that the driver drove vehicle in rash and negligent manner and have accepted that the vehicle was insured with them but the driving license was not a valid driving license. The owner filed his reply with all the following documents. Issuance certificate, permit, policy driving licence and mentioned that his vehicle was wrongly being implicated in the accident. 5. The claimants examined PW-1, one Ramesh Kumar Jaiswal who was the father of the deceased and P.W -2 was one Jagdish Chandra who claimed to be the eye witness. The documentary evidences filed are as as follows. 1. F.I.R. 2. Chik F.I.R 3. Charge Sheet 4. Panchayatnama 5. Postmortem report 6. Application under section 20 Ga/15 7. High School and Mark sheet 8. Road Permit 9. Insurance Policy etc. 6. The Tribunal framed five issues and held that the motorcyclist was not at all negligent. It is this finding which is challenged by the Insurance Company. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has committed error in holding the driver of the Truck bearing no. Road Permit 9. Insurance Policy etc. 6. The Tribunal framed five issues and held that the motorcyclist was not at all negligent. It is this finding which is challenged by the Insurance Company. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has committed error in holding the driver of the Truck bearing no. UP 70 AT/1286 who according to the Insurance Company was driving the vehicle on his extreme left i.e. his correct side. 8. It would be relevant to discuss the principles for deciding contributory negligence and for that the principles for considering negligence will also have to be looked into. 9. Negligence means failure to exercise required degree of care and caution expected of a prudent driver. Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon the considerations, which ordinarily regulate conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. Negligence is not always a question of direct evidence. It is an inference to be drawn from proved facts. Negligence is not an absolute term, but is a relative one. It is rather a comparative term. What may be negligence in one case may not be so in another. Where there is no duty to exercise care, negligence in the popular sense has no legal consequence. Where there is a duty to exercise care, reasonable care must be taken to avoid acts or omissions which would be reasonably foreseen likely to caused physical injury to person. The degree of care required, of course, depends upon facts in each case. On these broad principles, the negligence of drivers is required to be assessed. 10. It would be seen that burden of proof for contributory negligence on the part of deceased has to be discharged by the opponents. It is the duty of driver of the offending vehicle to explain the accident. It is well settled law that at intersection where two roads cross each other, it is the duty of a fast moving vehicle to slow down and if driver did not slow down at intersection, but continued to proceed at a high speed without caring to notice that another vehicle was crossing, then the conduct of driver necessarily leads to conclusion that vehicle was being driven by him rashly as well as negligently. 11. 11. 10th Schedule appended to Motor Vehicle Act contain statutory regulations for driving of motor vehicles which also form part of every Driving License. Clause-6 of such Regulation clearly directs that the driver of every motor vehicle to slow down vehicle at every intersection or junction of roads or at a turning of the road. It is also provided that driver of the vehicle should not enter intersection or junction of roads unless he makes sure that he would not thereby endanger any other person. Merely, because driver of the Truck was driving vehicle on the left side of road would not absolve him from his responsibility to slow down vehicle as he approaches intersection of roads, particularly when he could have easily seen, that the car over which deceased was riding, was approaching intersection. 12. In view of the fast and constantly increasing volume of traffic, motor vehicles upon roads may be regarded to some extent as coming within the principle of liability defined in Rylands Vs. Fletcher, (1868) 3 HL (LR) 330. From the point of view of pedestrian, the roads of this country have been rendered by the use of motor vehicles, highly dangerous. 'Hit and run' cases where drivers of motor vehicles who have caused accidents, are unknown. In fact such cases are increasing in number. Where a pedestrian without negligence on his part is injured or killed by a motorist, whether negligently or not, he or his legal representatives, as the case may be, should be entitled to recover damages if principle of social justice should have any meaning at all. 13. These provisions (Sec.110A and sec.110B of Motor Act, 1988) are not merely procedural provisions. They substantively affect the rights of the parties. The right of action created by Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 was 'new in its species, new in its quality, new in its principles. In every way it was new. The right given to legal representatives under Act, 1988 to file an application for compensation for death due to a motor vehicle accident is an enlarged one. This right cannot be hedged in by limitations of an action under Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. New situations and new dangers require new strategies and new remedies. 14. The right given to legal representatives under Act, 1988 to file an application for compensation for death due to a motor vehicle accident is an enlarged one. This right cannot be hedged in by limitations of an action under Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. New situations and new dangers require new strategies and new remedies. 14. In the light of the above discussion, I am of the view that even if courts may not by interpretation displace the principles of law which are considered to be well settled and, therefore, court cannot dispense with proof of negligence altogether in all cases of motor vehicle accidents, it is possible to develop the law further on the following lines; when a motor vehicle is being driven with reasonable care, it would ordinarily not meet with an accident and, therefore, rule of res-ipsa loquitor as a rule of evidence may be invoked in motor accident cases with greater frequency than in ordinary civil suits (per three-Judge Bench in Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab, 2005 0 ACJ(SC) 1840). 15. By the above process, the burden of proof may ordinarily be cast on the defendants in a motor accident claim petition to prove that motor vehicle was being driven with reasonable care or that there is equal negligence on the part of driver of another vehicle. 16. The learned counsel for the appellant relies on the site plan and has submitted that the principle of "res ipsa loquitor" would apply to the facts of the case. 16. In the alternative, it is submitted that the deceased was liable for the accident having taken place and his negligence should be attributed at least 50%. It is further submitted that the owner and Insurance Company of the motorcycle driven by the deceased was not impleaded as opposite party and therefore, also, the petition was bad. 17. As far as the issue of negligence is concerned, the driver of the truck has absented himself. The finding of fact is that he was coming from his eastern side in a rash and negligent manner. Considering the deposition by other witness and the charges levelled in the charge sheet, in that view of the matter, I do not think that the motorcyclist was in any way liable for authoring the said accident or participating in it. 18. Considering the deposition by other witness and the charges levelled in the charge sheet, in that view of the matter, I do not think that the motorcyclist was in any way liable for authoring the said accident or participating in it. 18. In the final analysis it cannot be said that the driver of the motorcycle dashed with the truck. It is the driver of the truck who has been hold to be negligent. The driver ran away from the place of the incident. The finding that truck was coming from eastern side. The driver also did not stepped into the witness box. The charge sheet was also lodged against him even if we go by the site plan. The motor cycle has been dashed on his right side. Therefore, the submission that the motorcyclist has contributed in the accident, cannot be accepted. 19. The Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased on the basis of a certificate produced by the claimants that he was a Computer Engineer. The certificate of income of Rs.3000/- and another Rs.4,500/- has been produced but the Tribunal has held that they were not proved. 20. PW-2 has given statement that he was computer teacher in Ded Zone Computer Education Centre where he was earning Rs.3000/- per month and thereafter in Royal Computer Institute also and therefore, on the basis of the evidence produced, the income is considered to be 4,500/-. Therefore, I do not think that any fault can be found in the impugned order holding that the deceased was earning Rs.4,500/-. 21. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the income of the deceased in absence of proof of occupation would not have been Rs.4,500/- per month. It is submitted that the settled law is that at the most income of Rs.15,000/- per year, could have been presumed. It is submitted that multiplier of 13 was incorrectly applied by the Tribunal for ascertaining the amount of compensation as the age of father was 50 years and it should have been 8 at the best. 22. It is further submitted by learned counsel for Insurance Company that the deceased was unmarried person and as per settled law 2/3 deduction should have been made is towards his personal expenses which is not deducted. It is submitted that the amount is bonanza and not just compensation. 23. 22. It is further submitted by learned counsel for Insurance Company that the deceased was unmarried person and as per settled law 2/3 deduction should have been made is towards his personal expenses which is not deducted. It is submitted that the amount is bonanza and not just compensation. 23. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent claimants has submitted that neither the driver nor the owner have stepped into the witness box though the site plan is a public document, its veracity has not been proved and it appears that the site plan is not the correct version of the accident having taken place as the accident has not occurred in the way, it is shown in the site plan but the truck was coming from eastern side going towards western side i.e. how accident took place. 24. As far as quantum is concerned, the learned counsel for the claimant has submitted that in the light of the decision of this Court National Insurance Company Ltd. versus Smt. Vidyawati Devi and 2 others and even without there being an appeal or cross objection, if the Court feels that the amount awarded is not just amount, the Court can grant more amount and according to him, no future income has been considered as per the judgment of this Court. The multiplier would be applied considering the age of the deceased which has also not been considered with by the Tribunal. 25. Learned counsel for the claimant has further submitted that the rate of interest should have been 9 % and not 6 % as per the decisions of this Court. . 26. We find in recent authorities, Courts have held that appropriate rate of interest should be 9%. 27. In Neeta Vs The Divisional Manager, MSRTC (2015) 3 SCC 590 where accident took place on 22.03.2011, Court allowed 9% rate of interest and held that interest awarded by Tribunal at 8% was erroneous. Para-11 of the judgment reads as under:- "The appellants are also entitled to the interest on the compensation awarded by this Court in these appeals at the rate of 9% per annum along with the amount under the different heads as indicated above. Para-11 of the judgment reads as under:- "The appellants are also entitled to the interest on the compensation awarded by this Court in these appeals at the rate of 9% per annum along with the amount under the different heads as indicated above. The Courts below have erred in awarding the interest at the rate of 8 % per annum on the compensation awarded by them to the Appellants without following the decision of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi Vs. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association and Ors., (2011) 14SCC 481. Accordingly, we award the interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation determined in these appeals from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment." 28. In Kanhsingh Vs. Tukaram, 2015 (1) SCALE 366 where accident had taken place on 02.07.2006 but tribunal awarded no interest. Court held that this is erroneous and 9 % interest should have been allowed in view of the principles laid down in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (2011) 14 SCC 481 . 18. In Kalpanaraj and Others Vs Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (2015) 2 SCC where accident took place on or before 1994, High Court had awarded interest at the rate of 9 % per annum which was challenged that it is on higher side. Court upheld said rate of interest. 29. In Shashikala and Others Vs Gangalakshmamma and Another (2015) 9 SCC 150 , where accident had taken place on 14.12.2006, Court allowed 9 % rate of interest from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. 30. In Asha Verman and Ors Vs Maharaj Singh & Ors, 2015 (4) SCALE 329 , High Court awarded interest at the rate of 8 % . Accident took place on 27.11.2016. It was held that 8 % interest is on lower side and it should be 9 %. 31. In Surit Gupta Vs United India Insurance Company (2015) 11 SCC 457 , accident took place in July, 1990. Punjab and Haryana High Court had awarded interest at the rate of 6 %. Court held that it is on lower side and it should be 9 %. 32. In Chanderi Devi and another Vs Jaspal Singh and others (2015) 11 SCC 703 , date of accident is September 2006 and the incumbent died on 04.10.2006. Punjab and Haryana High Court had awarded interest at the rate of 6 %. Court held that it is on lower side and it should be 9 %. 32. In Chanderi Devi and another Vs Jaspal Singh and others (2015) 11 SCC 703 , date of accident is September 2006 and the incumbent died on 04.10.2006. Court awarded 9 % interest. 33. In Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi Vs Kasam Daud Kumbhar and Others (2015) 4 SCC 237 , incident was on 21.09.1990. Tribunal awarded 15 % interest which was reduced to 12% by Gujrat High Court. Court held that it is on higher side and awarded 9 % interest following its decisions in Amresh Kumari Vs Niranjan Lal Jagdish Parshad Jain 2010 ACJ 551 (SC) and Mohinder Kaur Vs Hira Nand Sindhi (2007) ACJ 2123 (SC). 34. In view of above, the rate of interest in the present case, 6 % awarded by Tribunal also cannot be justified and interest should be paid at 9 % per annum from date of clam petition til date of award by Tribunal. 35. It is true that the deduction of 1/3 is bad but the deduction should be one half , but the family will be entitled 2300x12, as the The deceased was aged about 25 years and therefore, as per the judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. versus Pranay Sethi and others, AIR 2017 SC 5157 , the multiplier would be that of the deceased and to that 40% of income will have to be added. 36. The income at Rs.4500/- considered by the Tribunal cannot be said to be bad. However, it is correct that the same should be slashed by one half and the multiplier would be 18 as per the age of deceased, for which a sum of 40% will have to be added for future prospects, as he was self employed, to that to a sum of Rs.70,000/- would have been added under the head of non pecuniary damages. Therefore, 2300x12x18 = Rs.4,96,800 + 1000x12x18= Rs.2,16,000 + 70,000 = would be Rs.7,82,800/-. Out of this, the awarded amount should be deducted. 37. The Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.4500/- under non pecuniary head which has to be adjusted in the amount aforesaid mentioned. 38. The appeal of Insurance company sans merit and is dismissed. The oral cross appeal for enhancement of compensation is accepted. Out of this, the awarded amount should be deducted. 37. The Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.4500/- under non pecuniary head which has to be adjusted in the amount aforesaid mentioned. 38. The appeal of Insurance company sans merit and is dismissed. The oral cross appeal for enhancement of compensation is accepted. The difference of compensation be deposited with 9% interest from filing of claim petition till realization. The additional amount be deposited within 12 weeks from today. 39. The judgment of Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid and the additional amount shall carry 9 % rate of interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till the said amount is deposited.