JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THE appellant, by this appeal, filed under Section 110d of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, has challenged the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior (for short, hereinafter called " the Claims Tribunal"), in Claim Case No. 104 of 1982, dated November 28, 1984. ( 2. ) ONE Dhanna, a painter working in J. C. Mills, Gwalior, on June 30, 1982, in the evening when he left for home after his duty, near Gole Ka Temple, a tractor, No. C. P. H. 5955, which was being driven rashly and negligently, dashed against Dhanna from behind, due to which he sustained extensive external and internal injuries on his head and other parts of the body. He was immediately rushed to the hospital in a precarious condition, but he breathed his last on July 1, 1982. At the time of his death, he was 50 years of age and was earning about Rs. 500 per month. He was the only bread-earning patriarch and the whole family depended upon his earnings. The claimants are his widow and children. They claimed an amount of Rs. 1,12,000 as damages from the appellant and respondents Nos. 5 and 6. ( 3. ) THE appellant, who was defendant No. 1, admitted himself to be the owner of the tractor. The appellant also admitted that defendant No. 2 was its driver at the time of the accident. The appellant hotly contested the claim and contended, inter alia, that defendant No. 3, the insurance company, was liable to pay. Defendant No. 3 denied the fact that the said tractor was insured with them on the date of the accident. Defendant No. 3 further contended that defendant No. 2 was not a licensed driver and that defendants Nos. 1 and 2, and not defendant No. 3, are liable to satisfy the claim arising out of the accident. The learned Claims Tribunal framed issues and, after recording the evidence of the parties, recorded the findings as given below: (i) As a result of the rash and negligent driving by defendant No. 2 of the tractor belonging to the appellant, Dhanna died after sustaining very serious injuries. (ii) The deceased, Dhanna, was 55 years of age and was healthy at the time of his death. (iii) Dhanna was earning Rs. 510 per month and from it he maintained the claimants. (ii) The deceased, Dhanna, was 55 years of age and was healthy at the time of his death. (iii) Dhanna was earning Rs. 510 per month and from it he maintained the claimants. (iv) The claimants are entitled to Rs. 39,000 as damages from the appellant. (v) Appellant-defendant No. 1 failed to prove that the tractor in question was insured on the date of the accident with the insurance company, etc. This court on October 17, 1985, admitted this appeal on the point whether the exemption from payment of the amount claimed by the insurance company was justified and legal ? But the appellant was permitted to address this court on the merit of the case also. The claimants-respondents have preferred a cross-objection on the ground that the amount awarded to them is meagre and the Claims Tribunal failed to take notice of the fact that the deceased was also earning extra money by doing the work of painting in his free hours. Shri R. K. Patni, learned counsel for the appellant, has taken me through the entire evidence on record and contended that the appellant sent a proposal from its office for the insurance of the tractor on June 28, 1982, i. e. , two days before the accident, the appellant also sent a cheque for the premium and hence, defendant No. 3, the insurance company, was liable to pay the amount of compensation. Shri S. K. Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company, repelled the contentions of Shri Patni and maintained that the proposal form and the said cheque were ante-dated and were sent to the office of the insurance company only after the date of the accident to escape liability. According to him, there was no insurance of the tractor on the date of the accident and, hence, the insurance company was not legally liable to pay the amount of damages. ( 4. ) I need not burden this judgment unnecessarily with the facts and evidence, because the learned Claims Tribunal has extensively dealt with the facts of the case and discussed the evidence in great detail in the impugned award. Mahesh (AW. 2) has given an eye-witness account of the accident. He informed the wife of Dhanna and she lodged a report of the accident at the police station. Kasturi Bai (AW. Mahesh (AW. 2) has given an eye-witness account of the accident. He informed the wife of Dhanna and she lodged a report of the accident at the police station. Kasturi Bai (AW. 1) is the unfortunate widow, who has given all the facts to prove her claim. Dr. V. K. Diwan (AW. 4) performed the autopsy on the dead body of Dhanna on July 1, 1982, and found the 10 left side ribs of the body were fractured, the left lung was crushed and the right pelvic bone was fractured. Besides these, there were numerous injuries on the chest and back, due to which he died. It is apparent that Dhanna was crushed to death by the wheels of the tractor. The nature of the injuries leaves no room for doubt, in my opinion, that the tractor was being driven at the time of the accident rashly and negligently and the death of Dhanna was the direct result of the injuries sustained by him due to the accident. ( 5. ) THE age of the deceased was rightly assessed at 55 years on the basis of the evidence tendered by Kasturi Bai (A. W. 1), the widow of the deceased, Mahesh (AW. 2) and Dr. V. K. Diwan (AW. 4 ). Dhanna was correctly held to be healthy and fit for work at the time of his death. Kasturi Bai (AW. 1) stated that her husband was earning Rs. 500 per month from J. C. Mills. Rakesh Sharma (AW. 3) has proved this fact on the basis of the entries made in the record of the mills and has stated that the deceased was getting at the time of his death Rs. 416. 73 per month plus bonus. So far as the private work of painting by the deceased was concerned, Kasturi Bai (AW. 1), the widow, has admitted that her deceased husband did private work of painting for 10 to 15 days in a month. She has further stated that he earned from the private work of painting Rs. 8 to Rs. 10 per day during the holidays. From the above facts, the learned Claims Tribunal rightly concluded that Dhanna used to earn Rs. 40 on four holidays per month and about Rs. 50 per month on other holidays. But it failed to correctly assess the amount earned by Dhanna from his private practice. 8 to Rs. 10 per day during the holidays. From the above facts, the learned Claims Tribunal rightly concluded that Dhanna used to earn Rs. 40 on four holidays per month and about Rs. 50 per month on other holidays. But it failed to correctly assess the amount earned by Dhanna from his private practice. If along with the salary of Rs. 416. 73, which he was getting from the mills, the amount of Rs. 90 which he used to earn per month from private work of painting and the amount of bonus, which too he was getting from the mills, are added, then the monthly earning of the deceased crossed the limit of Rs. 510 per month. If an amount of Rs. 1,000 is added to the amount awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal, then the income from bonus calculated can be explained justly and the damages, thus, comes to a total of Rs. 40,000. ( 6. ) DEFENDANT No. 3, the insurance company, has examined Prithvipal Singh, who states that he received the proposal form with the premium from the appellant only on July 12, 1982. The document (exhibit D-2) contains the date and endorsement of its receipt. The cheque was received along with exhibit D-2 and the receipt was issued by the insurance company on July 16, 1982 (exhibit D-3 ). He also produced documents, exhibits D-4 and D-5. Thus, the offending tractor was insured by the insurance company and a policy was issued for the period between July 12, 1982, and July 11, 1983. H. C. Solanki was examined by the appellant. According to him, exhibit D-2, the proposal form was prepared in his office on June 28, 1982, and it was given to an employee of the technical branch. This employee was not examined by the appellant to prove the facts as to on what date he delivered the proposal form in the office of the insurance company. The appellant has also not produced any acknowledgment or receipt for proving the same, issued by the insurance company. I, therefore, concur with the finding of the learned Claims Tribunal that on June 30, 1982, which is the date of the accident, the offending vehicle was not insured with the insurance company, defendant No. 3 and, hence, it was not liable to pay any amount of compensation on this account. I, therefore, concur with the finding of the learned Claims Tribunal that on June 30, 1982, which is the date of the accident, the offending vehicle was not insured with the insurance company, defendant No. 3 and, hence, it was not liable to pay any amount of compensation on this account. The insurance company is not liable to indemnify the appellant. I also concur with the finding of the learned Claims Tribunal that the claimant widow is also entitled to be compensated for the loss of her marital bliss. The learned Claims Tribunal has assessed an amount in that behalf at Rs. 3,000. Though this amount is meagrely low, I do not intend to interfere with the assessment made by the learned Claims Tribunal. ( 7. ) THE learned Claims Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 6% only. This rate is very much low. Due to inflation, money has lost its value, and the nationalised banks are paying enhanced rates of interest. In my view, therefore, the award of 6% of interest deserves to be modified. The Honble the Supreme Court in the case of Narcinva v. Kamat [1985] 58 Comp Cas 383 was of the view that interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the accident till the date of payment should be awarded on the total amount of compensation. Therefore, it would be just and proper if the claimants are allowed interest at the rate of 12% per annum instead of 6% per annum from the date of the accident till the date of payment of the total amount of compensation of Rs. 40,000. ( 8. ) CONSEQUENTLY, this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs througout. The cross-objection of the claimants is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 40,000 and on this amount of compensation the rate of interest shall be, 12% and not 6% per annum from the date of the accident till the date of payment. Counsels fee Rs. 350 is being quantified by this court. ( 9. ) BEFORE parting, I would like to caution the learned Claims Tribunal that it should strictly supervise the payment of the amount. It should also see that the amount is deposited in a nationalised bank in the joint names of all the claimants including those who are minors.