JUDGMENT N.N. Mithal, J.
1. U.P. State Road Trans. Corpn. has come up in appeal against the award given by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (IInd Additional District Judge), Allahabad. Against a claim of Rs. 87,000/-, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in all has been awarded. The appeal has been filed challenging the amount awarded. A cross-objection has also been filed by the claimant claiming Rs. 67,000/- in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal.
2. The list has been revised but nobody is present for the respondent to press the cross-objection. The cross-objection is accordingly dismissed.
3. Coming to the merits of the appeal, a few facts may be stated. The claimant was travelling by appellant's bus No. UTB 3188 on 9.3.1977. He was travelling from Mirzapur to Allahabad. At about 8 a.m. one of the tyres of the bus burst which resulted in collision with the tree. On account of the collision, the claimant received severe injury in which his right arm and right leg were fractured. On the basis of the evidence recorded in the case, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was negligence on the part of the appellant as the tyre had become worn out and there was no proper upkeep of the tyres which caused the accident. In the result the Tribunal found that the Corporation was negligent in maintaining the vehicle in a proper condition and was responsible for the accident.
4. The Tribunal also recorded a finding that the claimant had suffered the injuries as stated by the claimant and consequently it awarded a sum of Rs. 4,000/- on account of mental shock and pain; Rs. 1,000/- against a claim for Rs. 3,000/- on account of medical expenses; Rs. 5,000/- against a claim of Rs. 40,000/- on account of loss of earning capacity; a sum of Rs. 5,000/- due to reduction in the amenities of life and normal pleasures of life against a claim of Rs. 10,000/- and finally a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was awarded against a claim of Rs. 20,000/- on account of loss of normal life expectancy.
5. A vain effort was made by the learned counsel to urge that the finding regarding negligence was not recorded on the basis of proper appreciation of evidence. However, one of the defence witnesses Surya Narain Kushwaha, who is a mechanic with the appellant, has stated that the normal life of a bus tyre is 80,000 to 85,000 kilometres. The tyre in question had already done about 79,000 kilometres. Obviously, the tyre had almost outlived its life even then no effort was made to replace the tyre in time. There is no evidence either that there was a defect in the tyre nor is there any evidence about the care that was being taken of the vehicle and the tyres from time to time by the appellant. In view of this finding that the appellant was negligent in the matter of upkeep of the vehicle, it cannot be said that the same is erroneous or against the material on record.
6. Next it was urged that the amounts awarded against the different heads were not proper. We have examined the record and also seen the order of the Tribunal and we find that the same is based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record and if at all it has erred on the lower side rather than awarding the higher amount. In view of this we accept the findings recorded by the Tribunal and confirm the same. We, however, do not agree with the award of interest at the rate of 3 per cent by the Tribunal. Normally 6 per cent interest is allowed on the amount awarded from the date of application under Section 110-A. In this case for no reasons interest has been awarded only at the rate of 3 per cent from the date of the award.
7. In view of this, we are of the opinion that the claimant should have been awarded 6 per cent interest from the date of application till the date of payment. Orders accordingly.
8. In the result the appeal is dismissed subject to the above modifications as to interest. There will be no orders as to costs.