S.S.SUDHALKAR, J. - (1.) THE Insurance Company is challenging the award of the Tribunal. The claim petition was filed by the widow and daughter of deceased Ajit Singh who died in the motor accident.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant argued that there was a collusion between the respondents-claimants and the driver and owner of the vehicle. According to the learned Counsel, the vehicle number mentioned in the FIR is 640 while the vehicle number insured with the appellant is 040. Only because of the vehicle number being differently recorded in the FIR, the evidence of the respondents-claimants cannot be discarded. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the witnesses have deposed regarding the number of the vehicle being 040 and not 640. Even then it has to be seen that the FIR has been lodged on the first information and that has to be by one person only and not by more than one. In such a case, it will not be proper to throw out the evidence only because of the wrong number mentioned in the FIR. Moreover, the vehicle involved in the accident is a Matador. We questioned the learned Counsel for the appellant as to whether any evidence has been placed on record to show that vehicle number 640 is also a Matador. He replied that no such evidence is led. The Tribunal after considering the evidence, held that the vehicle involved is 'Matador' bearing No. 040 and we do not find any infirmity in the finding of the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the income of the deceased has not been assessed properly. According to him, the basis of assessing the income should be the pay scale of Rs. 950-1800/-. The income assessed by the Tribunal is Rs. 3000/- per month. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the copies of depositions before the Tribunal which he has shown to us. He has relied on the deposition of PW2 who was Senior Assistant, PHC Sahnewal, Ludhiana. He has stated that the scale of the deceased was Rs. 950-1800/- but he has also stated that the salary of the deceased was about Rs. 3500/- to Rs. 4000/- per month. When the basic pay scale was of Rs. 950- 1800/- the finding of the Tribunal that he was earning Rs. 3000/- per month cannot be said to be erroneous. We do not find any infirmity in the finding arrived at by the Tribunal.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant Insurance Company has argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding interest at the rate of 12% per annum. He has relied on the case of Kaushnuma Begum and others v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others, reported in 2001 ACJ 428. It has been observed by their Lordships as under :- "23. Now, we have to fix up the rate of interest. Section 171 of the MV Act empowers the Tribunal to direct that "in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as may be specified in this behalf. Earlier, 12 per cent was found to be the reasonable rate of simple interest. With a change in economy and the policy of the Reserve Bank of India the interest rate has been lowered. The nationalised banks are now granting interest at the rate of 9 per cent on fixed deposits for one year. We, therefore, direct that the compensation amount fixed hereinbefore shall bear interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of the claim made by the appellants. The amount of Rs. 50,000 paid by the Insurance Company under Section 140 shall be deducted from the principal amount as on the date of its payment and interest shall be recalculated on the balance amount of the principal sum from such date." ;