JUDGMENT 1. - These two appeals are connected as they are against the order dated 8th August, 1984 passed by the Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Kota in MACT Case No. 8 of 1983. 2. The facts in the present two appeals, which are to be decided by one common judgment are not in dispute, so far as claim petition filing and its adjudication by the Tribunal is concerned. In short the claim petition was filed against Purshottam by Smt. Manju Kumari widow of Gajendra Singh, who died on account of accident and Baby daughter of Gajendra Singh. The accident happened on 2-8-1982 at about 2.00 P.M. when Gajendra Singh was going on motor cycle towards Gumanpura. The matador bearing RSO 4059 driven by Pursottam was coming from opposite side and caused accident resulted in death of Gajendra Singh. The claim petition was for Rs. 42,00,000/- but the claim allowed is Rs. 65,000 to the wife Smt. Manju and daughter Baby and so far as in the other claim petition filed by Govind Singh and Chandresh Kumari father and mother of Gajendra Singh is concerned, the claim allowed is only of Rs. 10,800/-. 3. Having heard Mr. Bandhu for the appellant and Mr. Goyal for the claimants and Mr. Bhartiya for the insurance company, I am of the opinion that the submission of Mr. Bandhu that the liability of the insurance company is unlimited, cannot be accepted. A copy of the insurance policy has been shown to me by Mr. Goyal in which liability limits has been mentioned as Rs. 50,000/-. That being so, the liability cannot be more than Rs. 50,000/-, for this insurance policy. Consequently the submission of Mr. Bandhu that merely because on the top of this policy before the schedule 'comprehensive' word has been used therefore, the liability should be unlimited cannot be accepted. It all depends on the detailed features of the policy. 4. The arguments of Mr. Goyal is that interest at the rate of 12 per cent should have been allowed. 5. Now coming to the cross objection filed by Mr. Goyal. The only point survives for consideration is that interest should have been allowed at the rate of 12 per cent. This appears to be reasonable. 4. The arguments of Mr. Goyal is that interest at the rate of 12 per cent should have been allowed. 5. Now coming to the cross objection filed by Mr. Goyal. The only point survives for consideration is that interest should have been allowed at the rate of 12 per cent. This appears to be reasonable. It is now cases well established that motor vehicles accident compensation the normal fate of interest which is to be allowed is 12 per cent from the date of the application till the date of realisation. 6. Consequently the cross objections are accepted. All the claimants would get interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of filing of claim petition till from the date of realisation or deposit in the court as the case may be, on the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 7. Mr. Goyal wants clarification that since the insurance company has paid the amount of compensation, so even upto Rs. 50,000/-, they should be asked to pay the interest. Mr Bhartiya submits that the amount has been paid. In this view of the matter the interest would be paid by the insurance company till the date of deposit or payment and not after that. 8. The result of the above discussion is that whereas the appeals are dismissed, the cross objections are accepted as indicated above, without any order as to costs. F4479 Appeals dismissed/Cross objections allowed. *******