: 1 : SD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1017 OF 1992 FIRST APPEAL NO.1017 OF 1992 FIRST APPEAL NO.1017 OF 1992 WITH WITH WITH CROSS OBJECTION (ST.) NO.30465 OF 1992 CROSS OBJECTION (ST.) NO.30465 OF 1992 CROSS OBJECTION (ST.) NO.30465 OF 1992 National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. ...Appellants V/s. Prabhakar Anant Karnik & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.S.R. Singh, Advocate, for the Appellants. . Mr.S.R. Page, Advocate, for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. DATE : 18TH MARCH, 2008. DATE : 18TH MARCH, 2008. DATE : 18TH MARCH, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT : ORAL JUDGMENT : ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Advocates appearing for the parties. The Appeal is by the insurer of the vehicle, the owner and the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident. 2. The 1st respondent is the father of the victim, the 2nd respondent is the mother of the victim and the 3rd respondent is the minor sister of the victim. The accident occurred on 3rd March, 1988 near State Transport Bus Stop at Village Karul. According to the case of the 1st respondent, his son was standing by the side of the road. The offending vehicle came and gave a dash to the son whose age was hardly 4 and 1/2 years. The child succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. : 2 : 3. The finding of the Tribunal is that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the offending truck. The Tribunal found that the 1st respondent-claimant was entitled to the compensation of Rs.75,000/-. After taking into account the compensation awarded under the no fault liability, an Award was made in the sum of Rs.60,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. 4. The submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants is that the compensation awarded is excessive. His submission is that considering the fact that the age of the child was 4 and 1/2 years, the compensation could not have exceeded Rs.40,000/- or Rs.50,000/- considering the fact that the accident is of the year 1988. The submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents is that considering the fact that the Award was made in the year 1991, interest at the rate of 12% per annum ought to have been granted. His submission is that the respondents were entitled to compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. 5. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. It is not in dispute that the age of the child at the time of accident was 4 years and 4 : 3 : months. The accident is of 3rd March, 1988. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is of Rs.75,000/-. There is merit in the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants that the compensation is on the higher side. The compensation could not have exceeded Rs.50,000/-. Moreover, the learned Counsel for the respondents is also right in contending that instead of 6% p.a., interest ought to have been awarded at the rate of 12% p.a. considering the rates of interest prevailing at the relevant time. Thus the compensation awarded will have to be reduced and the rate of interest will have to be increased. The net result is that ultimately there will be no change in total compensation payable. 6. Therefore, impugned Award will have to be confirmed by dismissing both the Appeal and the Cross Objection. Accordingly, Appeal alongwith Cross Objection are dismissed with no orders as to costs. 7. If any amount deposited by the 1st appellant is pending in this Court, the said amount shall be immediately transferred to the concerned Tribunal alongwith interest accrued thereon. The concerned Tribunal will pass appropriate order regarding withdrawal/disbursement in terms of the Award after : 4 : hearing the parties. [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]