JUDGMENT Alok Aradhe, J. - All these appeals arise out of an accident, which took place on 04.06.2013. The deceased Aravind Padiyar and other injured claimants were traveling in K.S.R.T.C bus bearing No. KA-01-F-9342 (hereinafter referred to as the bus for the sake of convenience) from Bangalore to Kundapur on 04.06.2013. At about 10.30 p.m. on B.M. Road of Channarayanapatna Taluk, a lorry bearing No. KA-54-3587 (hereinafter referred to as the lorry for the sake of convenience), which was coming from the opposite direction collided head on with the bus. As per the claimants, the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of the bus as well as the lorry. The Claims Tribunal has held the driver of the lorry was negligent to the extent of 90%, whereas, the driver of the bus has been held negligent to the extent of 10%. Being aggrieved, the insurer of driver of the lorry viz., Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., has filed three appeals viz., MFA Nos. 7256-58/2016, whereas, the insurer of the bus viz., New India Assurance Company has filed three appeals viz., M.F.A. Nos. 9103-9105/2015. The legal representatives of the deceased have filed M.F.A. No. 8333/2015, whereas, the injured persons have filed two M.F.A. Nos. 8334-35/2015 seeking enhancement of the compensation. Since, all the three claim petitions have been decided by a common judgment dated 11.08.2015 passed by the Claims Tribunal, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. FACTS 2. In MFA No. 8333/2015 which arises out of M.V.C. No. 3946/2013, the claimants who are the widow, children and parents of the deceased pleaded that deceased was employed as Head Formulation Development (PHARMA Department) R & D Centre in Himalaya Drugs Company and was earning a sum of Rs. 5 Lakhs per month. It was also pleaded that at the time of the accident, deceased was aged about 44 years. Thus, a compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- along with interest was claimed. In M.F.A. Nos. 8334-35/2015, which arise out of M.V.C. No. 4536/2013 and 3947/2013. The claimants in the aforesaid petitions pleaded before the Claims Tribunal that in the accident they suffered grievous injuries and were shifted to the hospital at Belur and thereafter to another hospital at Belur. 10,00,00,000/- along with interest was claimed. In M.F.A. Nos. 8334-35/2015, which arise out of M.V.C. No. 4536/2013 and 3947/2013. The claimants in the aforesaid petitions pleaded before the Claims Tribunal that in the accident they suffered grievous injuries and were shifted to the hospital at Belur and thereafter to another hospital at Belur. It was pleaded by claimant in M.V.C. No. 3947/2013 that she underwent surgery and suffered amputation and due to the accident, she has suffered permanent disablement. Similarly, claimant in M.V.C. No. 4536/2013 took treatment in City Hospital, Udupi and underwent surgery and suffered permanent disability to the extent of 17%. Accordingly, the compensation was claimed. 3. In response to the notices received in the proceedings, the owner did not appear and was proceeded ex parte. The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., filed statement of objections, in which factum of death/injuries was denied. However, it was admitted that the lorry was insured with it. It was also pleaded that as per Section 158(6) and Section 134(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, neither the Investigating Officer nor the insured informed the insurance company about the accident. It was also pleaded that K.S.R.T.C authorities in collusion with jurisdictional police have got filed the chargesheet against the driver of the lorry. The age, income and avocation of the deceased as well as injured persons as well as the fact that they were traveling in the bus was also denied. 4. The respondent No. 3 viz., the insurer of the bus in the statement of objections has denied the averments and has pleaded that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. It was further pleaded that as a result of the accident, the deceased Arvind Padiyar succumbed to injures on the spot and two other claimants sustained grievous injuries. It was further pleaded that the bus was moving slowly from Bangalore to Murdeshwara on the left side of the road but the lorry, which was driven in a high speed in a rash and negligent manner dashed the bus head on. 5. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and recorded the evidence. The claimants in M.V.C. No. 3946/2013 got examined the widow of the deceased as PW1, whereas, claimant in M.V.C. Nos. 5. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and recorded the evidence. The claimants in M.V.C. No. 3946/2013 got examined the widow of the deceased as PW1, whereas, claimant in M.V.C. Nos. 3947-4436/2013 got examined themselves as PW2 and PW3 and other witnesses viz., PW4-retired employee of Indian Space Research Organization, PW5-Consultant Orthopedic Surgeon at Hosmat Hospital, PW6-Consultant Plastic Surgeon, PW7-Executive-Employee Relations, Himalaya Drug Company and got exhibited 43 documents viz., Ex. P1 to Ex. P43. The New India Assurance Company examined the conductor of the bus as RW1, spare driver as RW2 and Deputy Manager, Assistant Manager and Executive HR as RW3 to RW5 respectively and got exhibited 13 documents viz., Ex. R1 to R13. The Claims Tribunal by impugned judgment inter alia held that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle viz., lorry in question, as a result of which deceased Aravind Padiyar died and two other passengers sustained injuries. The Tribunal held that the claimants in M.V.C. No. 3946/2013 are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,10,87,200/- along with interest at the rate of 6%, whereas, claimants in M.V.C. Nos. 3947/2013 and 4536/2013 were entitled to compensation of Rs. 7,38,000/- as well as Rs. 5,14,000/- respectively along with interest at the rate of 8%. The liability of the Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., and New India Assurance Company was apportioned to the tune of 90% and 10% respectively. In the aforesaid factual background, these batch of appeals have been filed. SUBMISSIONS 6. Learned Senior counsel for the claimant in M.F.A. No. 8333/2015 submitted that the deceased was employed as Head Formulation Development (PHARMA DEPARTMENT) R & D Center of Himalaya Drugs Company, Bangalore. The income of the deceased should have been ascertained with reference to the return, which pertains to Assessment Year 2013-14. It is submitted that from Ex. P11 it is evident that the annual gross salary of the deceased was Rs. 45,00,501/-. After deduction of TDS, the net income comes to Rs. The income of the deceased should have been ascertained with reference to the return, which pertains to Assessment Year 2013-14. It is submitted that from Ex. P11 it is evident that the annual gross salary of the deceased was Rs. 45,00,501/-. After deduction of TDS, the net income comes to Rs. 33,80,699/- and the same should have been taken as income of the deceased and 30% of the amount ought to have been added to the aforesaid income on account of future prospects and 1/4th ought to have been deducted from the aforesaid amount towards personal expenses and after selection of multiplier of 14, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 4,61,46,562/-. It is submitted that the Claims Tribunal grossly erred in deducting a sum of Rs. 8 Lakhs on account of Group Insurance, which is not permissible in law and erred in taking the average of the income tax returns. Reference has been made to Section 3 of the Interest Act, 1978 and on the basis of the analogy drawn from the aforesaid provision, it is submitted that interest ought to have been awarded at the rate of 7.5% to 8%. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Helen C. Rebello and Others v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Another, 1999 1 SCC 90 , Shashikala and Others v. Gangalaksmamma and Another, (2015) 9 SCC 150 , Dharampal and Others v. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, (2008) 12 SCC 208 Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , Santosh Devi and Others v. Mahaveer Singh and Others, (2018) 9 SCC 146 , Anant v. Pratap and Another, (2018) 9 SCC 450 , decision of a bench of this Court in Rajeshwari G. Bhuyar and Others v. Sindhu Travels and Another, ILR 2016 Kar 549 and a division bench decision of this court dated 13.10.2015 in MFA No. 2222/2015. 7. Learned counsel for the claimants in M.F.A. No. 8334/2015 has submitted that the tribunal grossly erred in deducting 50% of the amount towards loss of personal expenses and since, the accident had taken place in the year 2013, the notional income of the injured ought to have been taken at Rs. 7. Learned counsel for the claimants in M.F.A. No. 8334/2015 has submitted that the tribunal grossly erred in deducting 50% of the amount towards loss of personal expenses and since, the accident had taken place in the year 2013, the notional income of the injured ought to have been taken at Rs. 8,000/- It is also argued that 25% has to be added towards loss of future prospects and the claimant ought to have been awarded compensation towards medical and incidental expenses. It is urged that tribunal has failed to award any amount on account of loss of marital life. It is also pointed out that the compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering and loss of amenities is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced suitably. In M.F.A. No. 8335/2015, it is urged by the learned counsel that no compensation has been awarded towards conveyance, attendant charges as well as special diet. It is also urged that no compensation is awarded towards loss of leave of 92 days, which is evident from Ex. P35 and compensation granted towards future medical expenses as well as disability is on the lower side. 8. Learned counsel for the Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., has submitted that the accident took place in the middle of the road due to the negligence of the driver of the bus. It is pointed out that the complaint was lodged by one Umesh viz., the spare driver of the bus and from perusal of sketch Ex. P2, it is evident that the bus rammed into the lorry, due to which lorry turned turtle. Learned counsel has also invited our attention to cross-examination of RW1-Mr. Shivashankar who was seated behind the driver and at the time of accident was talking to the driver, as a result of which attention of the driver of the bus was diverted. It is argued that since, he was seated behind the driver, therefore, the aforesaid witness could not have witnessed the manner of accident. While referring to statement of RW2-Umesh, it is argued that from perusal of IMV report, it is evident that right hand side of the bus was damaged and therefore it is clear that the bus rammed into the lorry. While referring to statement of RW2-Umesh, it is argued that from perusal of IMV report, it is evident that right hand side of the bus was damaged and therefore it is clear that the bus rammed into the lorry. It is pointed out that statement of RW6-Inspector, Marappa is based on hearsay evidence insofar as it pertains to negligence of the driver of the lorry. However, he has admitted that the road was under construction. It is also argued that even though aforesaid witness has stated that spot photograph has been taken, but however, the same has not been produced. It is also urged that PW2-Kanthamma has deposed before the tribunal that there was a head on collusion between the bus and lorry and in the cross-examination, at one place she has admitted that the driver of the lorry was not at fault and at one place she has admitted that both the drivers are responsible. With reference to evidence of PW3-Dayanand, it has been pointed out that there was a head on collusion and the drivers of the lorry as well as the bus were at fault. It is also pointed out that PW5-Yellappa has stated in his evidence that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the drivers of lorry and bus and in his cross-examination has admitted that the sketch is not proper. It is also argued that whole investigation by the police authorities is stage managed and spot photographs have been withheld and the evidence of the eye-witnesses have been over looked by the Claims Tribunal while recording a finding with regard to contributory negligence to the extent of 90% and 10%. 9. It is also argued that claimant in M.F.A. No. 8333/2015 has not produced any particulars of contract of employment and his salary was variable. It is also argued that no document has been adduced in respect of the salary of the deceased and Rs. 1,75,000/- was the salary of the deceased and the tribunal ought to have applied split multiplier, in view of the statement of PW4 who in his evidence had stated that deceased had ten years of service. It is also urged that parents could not have been treated as dependants and 1/3rd amount ought to have been deducted from the salary instead of 1/4th. It is also urged that parents could not have been treated as dependants and 1/3rd amount ought to have been deducted from the salary instead of 1/4th. It is also pointed out that the amount under the conventional heads has been awarded in contravention of the law laid down by Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi, AIR 2017 SC 5157 . It is also pointed out that the claimant in M.F.A. No. 7257/2015, has not adduced any evidence with regard to income and the Tribunal erred in awarding a sum of Rs. 4,68,000/- on account of loss of future earning capacity. It is also argued that claimant in M.F.A. No. 7258/2015 had not adduced any evidence with regard to medical expenses incurred by him and a sum of Rs. 1 Lakh each awarded on account of loss of amenities as well as pain and suffering is on higher side. It is also urged that interest to both the claimants who had sustained injury in the aforesaid accident is awarded at the rate of 8%, which is on the higher side. 10. Learned counsel for the K.S.R.T.C submitted that from perusal of the mahazar, Ex. P2 it is evident that there is no service road and the width of the road was 50 to 80 feet. It is further submitted that width of one lane was 24 feet and lorry was coming from the opposite direction where no work was going on. It is further submitted that from perusal of Ex. P2, it is evident that on account of impact of the accident caused by the lorry, the bus fell into a water canal and lorry had turned turtle. On account of the impact, the bus which was on the left side of the road fell into the water canal. It is also submitted that from perusal of the mahazar, it is evident that entire right portion including window of the bus were crushed to pieces. With reference to the evidence of RW6, it was pointed out that nothing was solicited from him in the cross-examination with regard to mahazar, sketch as well as the IMV report. It is further submitted that the photographs are available with the charge sheet. With reference to the evidence of RW6, it was pointed out that nothing was solicited from him in the cross-examination with regard to mahazar, sketch as well as the IMV report. It is further submitted that the photographs are available with the charge sheet. It is also urged that the reliance placed on the evidence of the claimants is of no assistance to the insurer of the lorry as they had no occasion to witness the accident. It is further submitted that no defence has been taken in the written statement that nearly at the time of incident, since, RW1-Shivshankar was talking to the driver, the accident has taken place. It is also urged that the finding with regard to contributory negligence to the extent of 90% and 10% is based on surmises and conjectures. Learned Senior counsel in support of his submissions has placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others v. Patricia Jean Mahajan and Others, (2002) 6 SCC 281 . CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE 11. We have considered the submissions made on both the sides and have perused the record. In Blacks Law Dictionary, 9th Edition, Page 1133 the contributory negligence has been defined as an act or omission amounting to want of ordinary care on the part of complainant party, which concurring with the defendants negligence is proximate cause of injury. The basic principle of contributory negligence in the field of accident in the Motor Vehicle Act is, when the defendants prove that plaintiff has failed to take precautions against the possible danger and those precautions if taken would have effective to protect would have been effective against the danger which occurred. The Supreme Court in Pramod Kumar Raseed Bhai Jhaveri v. Karma Sey Kunvargi Tak, (2002) 6 SCC 455 has defined the concept of contributory negligence and has held that the question of contributory negligence arises when there has been some act or omission on the claimants part which has materially contributed to the damage caused and is of such a nature that it may properly be described as negligence. Negligence ordinarily means breach of a legal duty to care, but when used in the expression contributory negligence, it does not mean any breach of duty it only means failure by a person to use reasonable care for safety of either himself or his property so that he becomes blame worthy in part as an 'author of his own wrong'. Similar view has been taken in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Lakshman Iyyer (2003) 8 SCC 731 and in Rajini v. Union of India, 2017 ACJ 2837 . 12. In the backdrop of aforesaid legal position, facts of the case on hand may be examined to ascertain the issue of contributory negligence. PW2-Kanthamma who is an injured eye-witness, though in the examination-in-chief has stated that there was a head on collusion between the bus and the lorry, however, in her cross-examination, she has stated that she was sitting on 25th or 26th seat and both the drivers are responsible for the accident. However, no credence can be attached to the aforesaid statement as she has further admitted in the cross-examination that she could not see the road and the windows were covered with screens. She has further stated that she was not in a position to state the speed of the bus, at which it was driven at the time of the accident. It has further been stated by her that after the accident, she was unconscious and later on she was informed by her son about the accident. Thus, it is evident that the aforesaid witness was not in a position to witness the manner, in which the accident had taken place. 13. Similarly, PW3-Dayanand who was sitting on seat No. 16, a window seat, has stated in the cross-examination that both the drivers were responsible for the accident. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the aforesaid witness was sitting on seat No. 16, a window seat which is on the right side of the bus and that is why he has sustained the injury. The lorry was coming from the opposite direction i.e., from the right side of the bus and has hit the bus from the right side, as a result of which, the aforesaid witness has sustained injuries. PW1-Rajini Padiyar is not an eye-witness to the accident. PW5-Reddappa is an eye-witness who was sitting on the last seat of the bus. The lorry was coming from the opposite direction i.e., from the right side of the bus and has hit the bus from the right side, as a result of which, the aforesaid witness has sustained injuries. PW1-Rajini Padiyar is not an eye-witness to the accident. PW5-Reddappa is an eye-witness who was sitting on the last seat of the bus. He has admitted that the road was about 30 feet wide and the lorry came from opposite direction i.e., from the right side of the road. He has further admitted that incident has occurred due to fault of both the drivers. However, since the aforesaid witness was sitting at the last row in the bus, therefore, his version with regard to the manner of accident is not worthy of reliance. 14. RW1-Shivshankar, the conductor of the bus has stated that he was sitting in the front row and bus was moving on the left side of the road and a lorry came from the opposite direction, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bus. He has also denied the suggestion that the spot sketch-Ex. P2, is concocted. RW2-Umesh B, spare driver of the bus has denied the suggestion that accident took place due to the fault of the driver of the bus and not due to the fault of the lorry driver. It is further submitted that he was sitting behind the conductor on seat No. 4. He has also denied the suggestion that at the time of the accident, the driver was sleeping. It is pertinent to mention here that the Investigating Officer, Marappa has been examined as RW6. However, no questions have been put to him in the cross-examination with regard to IMV report, mahazar and sketch. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve IMV report, mahazar and the sketch. It is also pertinent to mention here that in the cross-examination, no challenge even has been made to chargesheet. Thus, on the analysis of the evidence on record, it is evident that the only credible evidence with regard to manner of accident is IMV report, mahazar and sketch viz., Ex. P2, Ex. P2(a) and Ex. P3. From perusal of the IMV report, it is evident that bus had sustained damage on the right side and all the wind screen glasses are broken while the entire front cabin of the lorry is damaged. P2, Ex. P2(a) and Ex. P3. From perusal of the IMV report, it is evident that bus had sustained damage on the right side and all the wind screen glasses are broken while the entire front cabin of the lorry is damaged. 15. From perusal of spot sketch, it is evident that the bus has been displaced from the road towards left side and has fallen into a water canal. Thus, it is axiomatic that the lorry, which was coming from the right hand side of the bus from the opposite direction, has hit the bus with a higher velocity and extensive damage has been caused to both the vehicles, which shows that lorry being a lighter vehicle than the bus was being driven on a higher speed. It is pertinent to note that entire front portion of the lorry has been damaged, whereas, the front right portion of the bus has been damaged. Therefore, the question of contributory negligence does not arise in the fact situation of the case. Besides this, it is pertinent to mention here that Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., has not taken any plea of contributory negligence. In the written statement, the case which was pleaded on behalf of the insurance company was that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus by the driver. The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., has also not led any evidence to prove the plea of contributory negligence. Besides that, the tribunal has not recorded any reasons for attributing 10% negligence to the driver of the bus. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal that the accident took place on account of contributory negligence of the driver of the bus and the lorry and the driver of the lorry had contributed to the extent of 90%, whereas, the driver of the bus had contributed to the extent of 10% in causing of the accident cannot be approved. Accordingly, it is held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. QUANTUM: 16. In M.F.A. No. 8333/2015, the deceased viz., Aravind Padiyar was employed as Head Formulation Department (PHARMA Department) R & D Centre of Himalaya Drugs Company, Bangalore. The claimants have filed the documents viz., Ex. P8, Ex. P10, Ex. P11 and Ex. 14 in support of the income of the deceased. QUANTUM: 16. In M.F.A. No. 8333/2015, the deceased viz., Aravind Padiyar was employed as Head Formulation Department (PHARMA Department) R & D Centre of Himalaya Drugs Company, Bangalore. The claimants have filed the documents viz., Ex. P8, Ex. P10, Ex. P11 and Ex. 14 in support of the income of the deceased. The claimants have also placed on record Ex. P43, Service Conditions Manual of the deceased. Before the Tribunal, the particulars of the income of the deceased with regard to the years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 were available. However, the Tribunal has taken into account the figures available for three years and has taken into account the average income of the deceased at Rs. 39,53,069/- and has deducted 1/4th of the amount taking into account the fact that there were four dependants on the deceased and taking into account the age of the deceased, which was 44 years at the time of the accident, has adopted the multiplier of 14 and has quantified a sum of Rs. 4,15,07,200/- on account of loss of dependency and out of the aforesaid amount, a sum of Rs. 8 lakhs has been deducted on account of the Group Insurance Claim received by the claimants from the company. 17. The Supreme Court in the case of Shashikala supra has not approved the action of the High Court in taking the average of income of two Assessment Years. Therefore, the income of the deceased for the Assessment Year 2013-14 has to be taken into account, which comes to Rs. 44,68,101/-, which is evident from the gross annual income as shown in Form No. 16-Ex. P11. To the aforesaid amount, a sum of Rs. 32,400/- has to be awarded on account of perquisites. Therefore, the gross annual income of the deceased comes to Rs. 45,00,501/-. A sum of Rs. 11,19,802/- has to be deducted on account of tax payable on the income of the deceased. Thus, the net income of the deceased is quantified at Rs. 33,80,699/-. Out of the aforesaid amount, 1/4th of the amount has to be deducted on account of personal expenses as there are four dependants on the deceased. Therefore, the amount of yearly dependency comes to Rs. 25,35,525/-. Thus, the net income of the deceased is quantified at Rs. 33,80,699/-. Out of the aforesaid amount, 1/4th of the amount has to be deducted on account of personal expenses as there are four dependants on the deceased. Therefore, the amount of yearly dependency comes to Rs. 25,35,525/-. The Supreme Court in Helen C. Rebello (Mrs.) and Others supra has held that deduction of the amount payable to the deceased on account of Provident Fund, Family Pension, Cash Balance etc., cannot be termed as pecuniary advantage and therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in deducting a sum of Rs. 8 lakhs on account of the sum received by the claimants under the Group Insurance from the company where the deceased was employed. 18. In view of law laid down by the constitution bench of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi, AIR 2017 SC 5157 , 30% has to be added on account of future prospects. Thus, the yearly dependency comes to Rs. 32,96,184/- and if the age of the deceased is taken into account which was 44 years at the time of accident the multiplier of 14 will be applicable. Thus, the claimant shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 4,61,46,562/- under the head of loss of dependency. The claimant No. 1 being the widow is held entitled to a sum of Rs. 40,000/- as loss of consortium and two minor children viz., claimant Nos. 2 and 3 who at the time of accident were aged about 15 and 9 years respectively are entitled to a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each on account of loss and affection. In view of law laid down by Magma General Insurance Company v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130, claimant Nos. 4 and 5 viz., the parents are entitled to a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each on account of filial consortium. In addition, the appellants shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, the claimants in M.F.A. No. 8333/2015 are held entitled to an amount of Rs. 4,63,76,562/- as compensation. 19. At this stage, we may advert to the rate of interest awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The accident had taken place in the year 2013. 30,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, the claimants in M.F.A. No. 8333/2015 are held entitled to an amount of Rs. 4,63,76,562/- as compensation. 19. At this stage, we may advert to the rate of interest awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The accident had taken place in the year 2013. The interest has to be awarded in the motor vehicles cases normally on the basis of the rate, at which the interest is awarded by the Nationalized Banks. Even though, learned Senior counsel for the claimants has urged that the interest should have been awarded at the rate of 7.5% to 8%. However, it is pertinent to mention here that before the Tribunal, no material was placed on record as to the rate, on which the interest was awarded by the Nationalized Banks in the year 2013. It is pertinent to mention here that the reliance placed by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner on the decision of the Supreme Court with regard to rate of interest is concerned, suffice it to say that the aforesaid decisions do not lay down any law with regard to grant of interest and in the facts of those cases, the interest has been awarded at the rate of 9%. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal insofar as it awards interest on the amount of compensation at the rate of 6% p.a. Thus, it is held that the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 4,63,76,562/- along with interest. The judgment passed in MVC No. 3946/2013 is modified. 20. In M.F.A. No. 7257/2015, the claimant viz., Kanthamma is a lady aged about 45 years and was engaged in the business of sale of sarees. It was claimed that she used to earn Rs. 10,000/- p.m. The claimant in the aforesaid accident has suffered fracture of 8th and 9th rib auto amputation of right arm at upper 1/4th level, crush injuries to right hand, crush lacerated wound. The claimant after the accident was hospitalized for a period of 8 days and underwent surgery and received treatment upto December 2013 i.e., for a period of six months. The claimant has suffered amputation of right limb and PW7 viz., the Dr. The claimant after the accident was hospitalized for a period of 8 days and underwent surgery and received treatment upto December 2013 i.e., for a period of six months. The claimant has suffered amputation of right limb and PW7 viz., the Dr. Deepu N.K. has opined that she has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 30% of the whole body and disability to the extent of 90% to the right limb. It has also been stated by aforesaid witness that the claimant needs prosthesis arm. 21. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 7,38,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. to the claimant. However, the Tribunal has taken the notional income of the injured at Rs. 6,000 p.m. and 50% of the amount has been deducted on account of personal expenses. Thereafter, the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 13 and has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,60,000/- on account of loss of earning capacity. The aforesaid mode of computation of compensation for loss of income on account of permanent disability is impermissible in law. From the evidence on record, it is evident that the claimant has not adduced any evidence with regard to her income therefore, as per the guidelines framed by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, her notional income should be taken at Rs. 8,000/- p.m. Since, the claimant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 30% and the age of the claimant at the time of accident was 45 years, therefore, the multiplier of 13 has to be adopted and the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,74,400/- on account of loss of future income. Since, the claimant has suffered amputation of upper limb, therefore, we award a sum of Rs. 1 Lakh under the head of pain and suffering. The claimant has not produced any evidence with regard to the medical expenses incurred by her. However, she has remained indoor patient for a period of 8 days and thereafter, has received treatment for a period of six months. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on account of attendant charges, conveyance charges and expenses incurred on account of special diet. The Tribunal has not awarded any sum on account of loss of amenities. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs. 75,000/- on account of loss of amenities. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on account of attendant charges, conveyance charges and expenses incurred on account of special diet. The Tribunal has not awarded any sum on account of loss of amenities. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs. 75,000/- on account of loss of amenities. The claimant has received treatment for a period of approximately six months therefore, we can safely incur that she was not in a position to work for eight months. Therefore, we award a sum of Rs. 64,000/- during laid up period. In addition, the claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs. 20,000/- on account of future medical expenses. Thus, the claimant is held entitled to Rs. 6,83,400/-. The aforesaid amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% from the date of petition till the payment is made. To the aforesaid extent, the award passed in MVC No. 3947/2015 is modified. 22. In MFA 8335/2015, the claimant viz., Dayanand who was aged about 47 years at the time of accident and was employed as lab helper in Government Engineering College, Surathkal has been awarded a sum of Rs. 5,14,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8%. The claimant in the aforesaid accident sustained injuries viz., open fracture of right humorous, radial nerve injury, multiple cut lacerated wound and was admitted in the hospital for a period of 24 days. The appellant underwent surgeries for fixation of external fixate to right arm, exploration of radial and ulna nerve, suturing of triceps, skin grafting, removal of external fixate, open reduction internal fixation of right humorous. The claimant has suffered as per the statement of PW6-Dr. Chethan, the appellant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 17% of the whole body. The monthly income of the claimant was Rs. 21,027/-. Thus, if the permanent disability of the claimant is taken to be to the tune of 17% and multiplier of 13 is adopted taking into account the age of the deceased, which was 47 years at the time of the accident, the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 5,57,636/- on account of loss of future income. In addition, the appellant is held entitled to a sum of Rs. 75,000/- each on account of pain and suffering as well as loss of amenities. 5,57,636/- on account of loss of future income. In addition, the appellant is held entitled to a sum of Rs. 75,000/- each on account of pain and suffering as well as loss of amenities. The appellant is also held entitled to the medical expenses to the tune of Rs. 2,94,000/-. The appellant is also entitled to a sum of Rs. 63,081/- as loss of income during the laid up period. The appellant is also held entitled to a sum of Rs. 20,000/- on account of future medical expenses as well as a sum of Rs. 25,000/- on account of attendant charges, conveyance charges and special diet. Thus, in all the claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs. 11,09,717/- along with interest at the rate of 6%. To the aforesaid extent the judgment passed in MVC No. 4536/2013 is modified. In view of preceding analysis, the appeals are disposed of in terms indicated above.