JUDGMENT
Tatia, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The brief facts of the case are that one Prem Kumar son of Oda Ram who was husband of claimant No. l, father of claimant No. 2 and son of claimant No. 3 died in accident with truck No.HYN-7941 which was owned by non-claimant No. 2 Ajit Singh and was being driven by non-claimant No. 1 -Pyara Singh. At the time of filing of claim, claimants were not aware of the fact whether the truck is insured or not and if insured which is the Company and who insured the above truck. The claimants submitted that Prem Kumar was employed as driver and he was driving Jeep No.RRK 1457. On 28.1.1988 at about 10.00 a.m. on the road from Hanumangarh to Ganganagar, deceased was going in the above jeep and a truck No.HYN 7941 came and hit the jeep of deceased-Prem Kumar and Prem Kumar died on spot. An FIR was lodged on 29.1.1988 by the owner of the truck. The claimants stated that Prem Kumar was getting Rs. 600/- per month by driving the above mentioned jeep and he was of the age of 30 years. According to claimants, in normal course of time, deceased would have earned more income, but because of this accident, he died which caused inter alia loss of income to the claimants. It is also submitted that at that time, father of deceased was of 65 years’ of age and mother was 60 years’ of age. Therefore, claimants claimed total Rs. 4,20,000/- from the non-claimants on account of loss of income which would have been received by the claimants. The claimants have also claimed Rs.1,00,000/- for mental shock and because of loss of love and affection and by claiming other expenses, total amount claimed is Rs. 4,20,000/-. It appears that there is some mistake in the entire claim as claimants claimed Rs. 4,20,000/-for deprivation of income of deceased and also claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental shock and loss of love and affection, but claimed total Rs.4,20,0007- only.
2. The Tribunal issued notice to the respondents, owner of the vehicle as well as to the driver, but proceeded ex-parte as none of them appeared. The learned Tribunal passed the ex-parte award on 28.11.1994 holding that driver of the truck was negligent in driving the truck and caused the accident. The Tribunal while assessing the damages, held that though claimant has mentioned in claim petition income of deceased Rs.600/- only, but the Tribunal has assessed the income of deceased @ 900/-per month and held that 273 of above amount shall be utilised for the benefit of wife of deceased and his son as well as for mother and father, therefore, the claimants were deprived of Rs.600 per month and determined 600 x 12 x 30 = 2,16,000/- and deducted 275 of the above amount and the Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,29,6007- on this count to the claimants and also awarded Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- on other count as mentioned in the above award dated 28.11.1994.
3. An application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was filed by the appellant- Ajeet Singh before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sriganganagar which was allowed by Tribunal in civil misc. case No. 33/97 and the award was set aside on the payment of cost of Rs.250/-and matter was again heard by Tribunal. After giving opportunity to the owner of vehicle also, Tribunal passed the impugned order dated 24.6.1998 and again decided issue No. l and 3 against the owner as well as driver and Insurance Company holding that Prem Kumar died because of accident caused by driver of the truck and the driver of truck was rash and negligent in driving the truck. While assessing the damages, Tribunal assessed Rs. 600/- per month as income of claimants and deducted Rs. 100/-which would have been the expenses incurred by claimant himself and applied the multiplier of 15 and assessed the loss of Rs.90,0007-. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,000/-to the claimant No. l against loss of consortium and Rs.5,000/- to the claimant No. 2 and Rs. 5,000/- to the claimant No. 3 for lose of love and affection, in total award of Rs. 1,10,000/- only -was passed by the Tribunal against the non-claim-ants.
4. While awarding above claim, Tribunal held that Insurance Company shall be liable to interest on 6.3.1993 when the Insurance Company was impleaded as party in the claim petition. Obviously, the claim petition was filed by the claimants without there being any knowledge of fact of Insurance and when the claimants came to know about the fact of Insurance and about the company who insured the truck, impleaded the National Insurance Company as party on 6.3.1993 which was under wrong impression as when claimant came to know about the correct fact of impleading the respondent-New India Assurance Co. as party and deleted the name of National Insurance Company. New India Assurance Company was not held liable to make the payment from 9.3.1988 to 6.3.1993 and for this period, interest was levied upon the appellant- owner.
5. The appellant owner preferred this appeal challenging the award of interest from 9.3.1988 to 6.3.1993. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that when the Tribunal itself decided the ex-parte decree against the appellant holding that there was sufficient reason for absence of appellant before the Tribunal and also awarded Rs.250/- for setting aside the ex-parte decree, therefore, once it is held that there was sufficient reason for non-appearance of appellant and cost was imposed for any delay, if it was occurred then impugned award imposing interest against the appellant and exonerating the Insurance Company from the interest from 9.3.1988 to 6.3.1993 cannot be allowed to stand as this will be contrary to the orders passed by Tribunal itself.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that Insurance Company undertook the reimbursement of entire claim if determined against the appellant and therefore, there is no reason for disallowing the claim against the Insurance Company.
7. The respondent-claimant also submitted cross-objection seeking en-hancement of claim. The learned counsel for respondent- Insurance Company submitted that respondent-Company was impleaded as party in the suit by order dated 1.4.1997 only and as per provisions of Sub-clause (5) of Rule 10 of Order 1, proceedings against the respondent-Insurance Company shall be deemed to be from only on the service of summons and, therefore, there was no claim against the respondent-Company till summons were served upon the respondent-Company after impleading respondent-Company and as per Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and corresponding Section 1I0(cc) of the Act of 1939, there is specific provision that interest if is awarded, shall be from not earlier than the date making the claim, therefore, according to learned counsel for the respondent, award of interest cannot be levied against the respondent-Company and the award of interest for the period given in the award against the owner-appellant is just and proper.
8. A bare perusal of Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would reveal that where any claims Tribunal allows a claim for compensation made under this Act, such Tribunal may direct that in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such date got earlier than the date of making the claim as it may specify in this behalf. Section 171 of the Act of 1988 further provides that Tribunal has power to pass the order for interest and it is from the date of making of claim and in this case, the claim against the owner was filed on 9.3.1988, therefore, owner was liable to make payment of the interest from 9.3.1988, the Insurance Company is only reimburs-ing the insured person, the owner and once there is no illegality in the award while awarding the interest against the owner, Insurance Company cannot escape from its liability to reimburse the claim and the interest to he paid by the owner, therefore, there is no substance in the submission of learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company; whereas the provisions of law as mentioned above in Section 171 of the M.V. Act clearly provides that Tribunal may pass the award of interest but in accordance with law.
9. In this -appeal, claimant filed the cross-objection and prayed that, compensation may be enhanced. The learned Tribunal has found that deceased was of 30 years’ of age and the claimant has slated on oath before the Tribunal that she being widow of deceased was not fully aware of the income of deceased at the time of filing of claim and intact the husband of claimant-Meena Bai was getting salary of Rs. 1,000/-. It is stated that deceased was in an employment as driver. In cross-examination on 12.2.1998, claimant-Meena Bai specifically stated that Satnam Singh, employer of deceased was not available in India and in rebuttal to this evidence only witness appeared was Kailash Chand, NAW-311, who being a witness of the respondent-Insurance Company has not denied the above income as claimed by the claimants. Infacl this is a case of no rebuttal evidence with respect to the fact of income of deceased and the admission made in the pleadings has been explained by the claimant. Therefore, learned Tribu-nal committed illegality in holding that claimant’s income is Rs.600/- only as mentioned in the claim petition ignoring the explanation given by the claimants, therefore, it is held that claimant was having monthly income of Rs. 1,000/-P.M., Rs. 250/- P.M. can be deducted on account of expenditure which might have been required by the deceased. The claimants are, therefore, entitled for compensation of Rs.750/- per month, multiplied by 12 and applying multiplier of 15, it comes to Rs. 1,35,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded Rs. 10,000/- against the loss of love and affection to the appellant No. l, Rs.5,000/- to the applicant No.2 and Rs. 5,000/- to applicant No. 3 for love and affection of father to applicant No.2; whereas against loss of love of son to applicant No. 3, This amount of Rs. 5,000/- is also deserve to be increased/enhanced and claimant Nos. 2 & 3 are entitled for Rs. 10,000/- instead of Rs.5,000/- each, therefore, in view of decision on issue No. 2, it is held that claimants are entitled to award of Rs. 1,65,000/-. The claimants are also entitled for interest on enhanced amount from the date of Judgment of this Court @9% per annum. The enhanced amount for respondent No.3- Pappu S/o Late Shri Prem Kumar shall be kept in fixed deposit till he attains the age of majority and enhanced amount to the respondent No. 2-Smt. Meena Bai wife of Late Shri Prem Kumar and respondent No. 4-Ghapo W/o Kurdaram, brother of deceased shall be paid in cash. Accordingly, appeal and cross objection are allowed with the aforesaid observations. No order as to costs.