1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.22 OF 1992 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation .. Appellant versus Dada Anandrao Pawar .. Respondent Mr.C.M.Lokesh i/by Mr.G.S.Hegde for the appellant. Mr.T.J.Mendon for the respondent. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 26th November 2009. JUDGMENT: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 20th April 1991 passed by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigad at Alibag by which compensation of Rs.1,38,750/- has been awarded to the respondent claimant together with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the payment of the said amount. The finding of the Tribunal is that the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus owned by the appellant was to the extent of 75%. The facts reveal that the accident occurred as a result of collision between a bus owned by the appellant and a truck. The respondent was travelling by the truck who 2 sustained injuries as a result of the accident. 2. It must be noted here that companion appeals were preferred by the appellant arising out of awards made for compensation in claims arising out of the same accident. First Appeal No.20 of 1992 and First Appeal No.19 of 1992 preferred by the appellant were decided by judgments dated 24th March 2005 and 2nd June 2008 respectively. The liability of the appellant to the extent of 75% was upheld by this Court and the only modification made by this Court was that the rate of interest was brought down to 9% from 12%. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant stated that though the issue regarding the negligence has been concluded by the decisions in companion appeals, in the present case multiplier of 20 applied by the Tribunal is on the higher side considering the fact that the age of the respondent was 26 years. He submitted that, therefore, the compensation awarded is on the higher side. 4. I have considered the submissions. As far as issue of negligence is concerned, this Court has already decided companion appeals preferred by the appellant against the appellant. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, it is true that the multiplier applied is on the higher side but the fact remains that future prospects of increase in the earnings of the appellant have not been considered by the Tribunal. Therefore, it is not possible to find fault with the ultimate figure of compensation arrived at by 3 the Tribunal. 5. As directed by this Court in companion appeals, the rate of interest will have to be brought down to 9% instead of 12% per annum. 6. Hence, I pass the following order: : O R D E R : (a) The impugned judgment and award is modified only to the extent that interest payable from the date of the claim petition will be at the rate of 9% per annum instead of 12% per annum. (b) Rest of the award is confirmed. (c) Appeal is partly allowed in above terms. (A.S.OKA,J)