PRAKASH TATIA,J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that an accident occurred on 1st December, 1992 and in that accident one Sugan Chand died. Sugan Chand's wife and his son submitted a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara. The registered owner of the vehicle as well as transferee of the vehicle were impleaded as party non -claimants in the claim petition. The Tribunal exonerated the Insurance Company from any 1iabi1ity as the vehicle was not insured. The driver of the vehicle was also impleaded as party. The Tribunal held that it was the sole negligence of the driver of the vehicle in the accident and, therefore, the driver is liable to pay the compensation and, consequently, the registered owner as well as the transferee of the vehicle both are also liable vicariously, jointly and severally. However, the Tribunal awarded interest @ 9% per annum in the award dated 20th November, 2000. Hence, the S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 196/2001 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of the interest from 9% per annum to 12% per annum. The S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 285/2001 has been filed by the transferee of the vehicle from the registered owner. According to learned Counsel for the appellant the Tribunal committed serious error while deciding issue of negligence of the driver of the vehicle. According to learned Counsel for the appellant, in fact, it was the sole negligence of the victim himself as he tried to ride on the bus when the bus was running. In fact, a scooter hit victim and the victim fell down and rear wheel of the bus ran over the victim and in the alternative; it is submitted that even if it is held that there was no accident from the scooter in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Mohammed Ayunddln Alias Miyam v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in : 2000CriLJ3508 , the driver cannot be held responsible in such circumstances when any person tried to ride the bus when bus is in movement, a Learned Counsel Mr. Sachin Acharaya appearing on behalf of the transferee informs registered owner of the vehicle tried to submit that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is on very higher side. According to both the Counsel, the salary certificate produced by the claimants of the deceased, has not been proved and there is no proof of income of the deceased. It is also submitted that even if the salary given in the salary certificate is accepted to be true then the Tribunal without any reason assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 2500 despite the fact that the claimants produced salary certificate for Rs. 1,859 only. Learned Counsel for the owner of the vehicle also submitted that the deceased was on the age of 54 years and was to retire after four years only. Therefore, the Tribunal has wrongly applied Multiplier of 10.
(3.) I considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record also. So far as award of interest @ 9% per annum is concerned, the reason may not by sufficient, but the fact remains is that in the light of the subsequent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the interest could have been only 9% per annum. Therefore, I do not find any merit in tile appeal preferred by the claimants for enhancement of the interest from 9% to 12%.;