JUDGMENT
A.R. Tiwari, J.
1. This appeal preferred under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the Award dated 29th July, 1983 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhar in Claim Case No. 67 of 1981.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the truck bearing registration No. CPE 9018 was owned by the respondent No. 2 Dilipkumar. At the relevant time, it was being driven by the respondent No. 1. The vehicle was registered with the respondent No. 4, the National Insurance Co., Indore. The matador bearing registration No. CPB 8901 was owned by the respondent No. 3 Khalil Mohd. and at the relevant time, it was being driven by Iqbal Mohd. (since deceased). On 22.11.1980, the matador was proceeding from Indore towards Maheshwar while at about the same time the truck noted above, was coming towards Indore. These vehicles collided on 22.12.1980 at 11.45 a.m. near village, Dhamnod. The driver of the matador died on account of the injuries sustained by him in this accident. The employees of the Godrej Company, Indore had hired the matador and were going on picnic from Indore to Maheshwar. In this accident, Sushant Chaterjee, Smt. Shailaja Sule were killed, while the appellant Smt. Geeta Rao and three ors. (Pradip Kotkar, Kailash Thakur and Devdas) were injured. These three injured persons also preferred claim petition. The respondents denied their liability and attributed negligence, to the driver of the matador. On evaluation of the evidence, the Tribunal found that it was a case of composite negligence and that there was rashness and negligence on the part of both the drivers of these vehicles. The Tribunal awarded the amount of Rs. 1,500/- together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of application presented on 6.5.1981 till realisation of the amount.
3. I have heard Mr. S.C. Bagadia learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. A.H. Khan learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 the National Insurance Co., Indore. None appeared for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
4. Mr. Bagadia submitted that the amount awarded is too low and deserves to be suitably modified. He also urged that the rate of interest is also low and merited to be increased. Mr. Khan, on the other hand, submitted that the amount of compensation is just and proper and does not call for any interference. As regards the interest, Mr. Khan submitted that there is no prayed contained in the memo of appeal and according to him, the interest allowed is quite reasonable.
5. The Division Bench of this Court held in Vinod Kumar Shrivastava v. Ved Mitra Vohra and Ors. 1970 ACJ 189 that the rules of assessment of damages are as under:
(i) the amount of compensation awarded must be reasonable and must be assessed with moderation;
(ii) Regard must be had towards made in comparable cases; and
(iii) the sums awarded should to a considerable extent be conventional.
6. The appellant has received head injury with lacerated contusion wound over right parietal area and chin region. This naturally caused physical pain and mental agony for considerable time. In these facts and circumstances, the amount of compensation as awarded is definitely low and in my view, the amount of Rs. 3,000/- as compensation would be just and proper compensation, besides the sum of Rs. 500/- allowed towards medical treatment.
7. As regards the rate of interest, I find that it should be 12% p.a. instead of 6% p.a. awarded by the Tribunal. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Anokhilal 1992 (11) MPWN S.N. 9 it is held as under:
Mr. G.K. Nema Counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted that the Tribunal erred in awarding the interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the amount of compensation from the date of filing of the application, whereas, is ought to have been at the rate of 12% p.a. Mr. Dhupar counteracted and submitted that there are no cross-objections. But in my opinion the submission of Mr. Dhupar has no merit as the Ffull Bench of this Court in case of Prakramchand v. Chuttan alias Alim and Ors. 1991 JLJ 733 has taken a view that the Tribunal is bound to award interest at the rate of 12% p.a. and for that no cross-objections are necessary, as powers under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC are wide. 1970 ACJ 405, 1971 ACJ 77 and 1972 ACJ 21 referred to. relied on.
8. It is, therefore, just and proper to increase and interest from @ 6% p.a. to @ 12% p.a. which would partly off set the effect of devaluation of rupees.
9. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part, and the Award of the Tribunal is modified inasmuch as the appellant is held entitled to get from the respondents the sum of Rs. 3,500/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the application i.e. 6.5.1981 till realisation of this amount.
10. There shall, however, be no order as to costs of this appeal. Counsel’s fee Rs. 300/ – is allowed if certified. Memo of cost be prepared. The record of the Tribunal is directed to be returned immediately.