JUDGMENT : V.K. SHALI, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short as “Act”) against the award dated 8.11.1993 passed by MACT seeking to set aside the impugned award. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 8.11.88 one Rattan Lal Khurana was going on the pillion of a two wheeler scooter which was being driven by Rakesh Kumar when they were hit from behind by the offending bus bearing registration no. UHN-974, which was being driven negligently at a very high speed by its driver Sobran Singh, resulting in the death of Rattan Lal Khurana. A petition was filed on 4.10.88 by the legal representatives of the deceased against the driver of the offending bus and UP roadways being the owner claiming compensation of Rs. 10 lacs. The deceased was stated to be 48 yrs old and partner in M/s Kwality Calender Co. Nai Sarak, Delhi having annual income of Rs. 56,000. Vide award dated 8.11.1993 the learned Tribunal awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs.3,60,000/- along with interest at 12% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition till the date of the award. Out of the aforesaid amount Rs.1,88,000/- was directed to be released to the widow of the deceased. From the balance amount a sum of Rs.80,000/- was to be released to the daughter while Rs.50,000/- each to be given to the two sons and the remaining Rs.20,000/- was to be given to the mother of the deceased. Further 75% of the compensation awarded to the widow was to be kept in FDR for a period of 10 years, to be released periodically in terms of the award. 3. The appellant has assailed the impugned order mainly on three grounds. Firstly it has contested the award on the ground of `no accident’ stating that the accident was caused due to negligent and rash driving of the scooter driver as a result of which it collided with the central patri of the road and the pillion rider fell near the rear right side of the bus and no portion of the bus struck the scooter. In support of the aforesaid contention the learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that no mechanical inspection report was brought on record by the respondents to prove their case. In support of the aforesaid contention the learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that no mechanical inspection report was brought on record by the respondents to prove their case. Further during cross examination the two eye witnesses being the driver of the scooter (PW- 3) and Sh. Vinod Kumar (PW-2) were unable to give details of the offending vehicle with respect to the color or which part of the offending bus had hit the two wheeler scooter. It is urged that both PW-2 and PW-3 were related to the deceased and therefore their testimony could not have been relied upon. As an alternate argument the learned counsel for the appellant has pleaded contributory negligence on behalf of the scooter driver. 4. Secondly the appellant has challenged the quantum of the compensation and the interest awarded which is stated to be exorbitant and arbitrary. The learned counsel for the appellant has contested that neither the salary nor the age of the deceased was proved on record. It is alleged that the multiplier determined by the learned MACT was perverse and erroneous. The learned counsel for the appellant has requested that in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case the rate of interest be reduced to a reasonable amount. 5. Lastly the appellant states that the original claim petition in itself was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties being the owner, driver and insurer of the two wheeler scooter on which the deceased was traveling. It is further stated that the learned MACT fell into an error by deciding that the aforesaid was not a necessary requirement merely because no defense of contributory negligence was pleaded by the appellant. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In my considered opinion I do not find any discrepancy qua the order/award passed by the learned Tribunal. 7. The story of no accident, woven by the appellants seems to be a far-fetched theory. The offending bus was following the vehicle of the deceased therefore, there could be hardly any occasion for any other vehicle hitting the vehicle of the deceased. The credibility of the witnesses cannot be denied merely on the ground that they were in relation to the deceased. Since PW-3 was himself involved in this accident and suffered injuries his presence and narration of the event is beyond shadow of doubt. The credibility of the witnesses cannot be denied merely on the ground that they were in relation to the deceased. Since PW-3 was himself involved in this accident and suffered injuries his presence and narration of the event is beyond shadow of doubt. It is understandable that they were in shock and could not recapitulate all the details. Further the impugned award itself records that the statements of PW-2 and 3 were cogent, consistent and convincing with regard to the circumstance of the accident. It is but natural the victim of the accident would be under a shock and a mental trauma and under such circumstances to remember or look for the color of the offending vehicle or its registration would be expecting an absurd and unnatural behavior from a victim. On the contrary the appellant did not produce any witness other than the driver of the offending bus to corroborate the theory of `no accident’ or `contributory negligence’ and miserably failed to establish its case. 8. The defense of contributory negligence cannot be accepted at this stage when the same was not pleaded before the learned Tribunal. I am in agreement with the stand taken by the learned Tribunal on the aspect of non-joinder of necessary party. When no allegation of contributory negligence or rash and negligent driving was specifically pleaded against the driver of the two wheeler scooter then no occasion arises for making driver owner or the insurer of the two wheeler scooter a necessary party of for their impleadment. 9. It is also surprising how the appellant has concocted the theory of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the two wheeler scooter when it has based its entire defense on the premise that no accident with the bus took place. 10. The issue of rash and negligent driving by the bus drivers is an everyday menace and even after repeated reprimands the same has not been resolved. The bus drivers continue to drive heavy vehicles high speed with no regard to the other road users and flouting all traffic norms. 10. The issue of rash and negligent driving by the bus drivers is an everyday menace and even after repeated reprimands the same has not been resolved. The bus drivers continue to drive heavy vehicles high speed with no regard to the other road users and flouting all traffic norms. The factum that the bus in the instant case is owned by the state transport corporation which is a government body casts an additional responsibility on its driver and all such who may be associated that their acts must be in conformity with the laws and the state regulations and the roads are rendered safe for the public. 11. The quantum of the compensation awarded by the learned MACT is just and reasonable. The learned MACT has considered the previous tax returns filed by the deceased to compute the salary and award the compensation. With regard to the interest component the S. 110 CC of the Motor Vehicle Act 1939 (old ‘Act’) and the S. 171 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 (new ‘Act’) both stand crystallized on the aspect that the power to award interest is a discretionary power of the court. But on the same score it is trite law that the same must be just and reasonable and determined not with a blanket approach but in keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of each individual case which has been done in the instant case. 12. In regard to the aforesaid I am of the view that the appellants have not been able to show any discrepancy in the impugned award or prima facie establish a case of material infirmity or patent illegality so as to require any interference by this court. 13. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed off. The appellants are directed to deposit the awarded compensation amount with the MACT, if so has not already been done, within four weeks. Once the aforesaid amount has been deposited, the same shall be released forthwith to the beneficiaries along with the interest in accordance with terms of the award.