Judgment R.A.Sharma, J. 1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has filed this appeal challenging an order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palamau at Daltonganj in M.V. Claim Case No. 3 of 1990, awarding a sum of Rs. 3,24,115 as compensation to the claimants on account of the death of their bread-earners. 2. Learned counsel for the insurance company has challenged the order on two grounds, namely, (i) the Tribunal has amended the award raising the compensation from Rs. 2,99,115 to Rs. 3,24,115 without any justification; and (ii) that the amount of compensation awarded is excessive, specially the penal interest. Both these submissions lack merit. 3. Pursuant to this courts order dated 26.8.1999, the claimants have filed an affidavit enclosing therewith the copy of the order sheet of the Tribunal and disclosing reasons therein for amendment. 4. From perusal of para 13 of the award, it is clear that a sum of Rs. 2,99,115 was awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants on the basis of the annual income multiplied by seventeen. In para 14, the Tribunal has further observed "Apart from the amount determined above, the applicants are also entitled to the amount of Rs. 25,000 on account of loss of consortium and loss to estate." But in the last operative portion of the award, sum of Rs. 25,000 awarded on account of consortium and loss to the estate, was not added. There is also no deduction of the amount of Rs. 25,000 paid to the claimants u/s. 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was a clerical error and the Tribunal, therefore, corrected the award by adding Rs. 25,000 awarded to the claimant on account of consortium and loss to estate and thereafter deducted a sum of Rs. 25,000 already paid to them under sec. 140 of the Act. The ultimate amount which was to be paid after making such deduction remained the same, i.e., Rs. 2,99,115 which was originally awarded. The appellant is thus not prejudiced by the correction of the calculation mistake by means of amendment. On this ground, therefore, there cannot be any interference in the award. 5. The second submission regarding excessive amount of compensation awarded to the claimants is also liable to be rejected. It is settled that the insurance company cannot challenge the quantum of compensation unless an order u/s. 170 of the Act is obtained from the Tribunal. On this ground, therefore, there cannot be any interference in the award. 5. The second submission regarding excessive amount of compensation awarded to the claimants is also liable to be rejected. It is settled that the insurance company cannot challenge the quantum of compensation unless an order u/s. 170 of the Act is obtained from the Tribunal. In the instant case, there is no such order. Even the so-called penal interest is the part of the compensation, which cannot be challenged by the insurer. In this connection, reference may be made to the decisions of the Apex Court in British India Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd, V/s. Captain Itbar Singh, 1958-65 ACJ 1 (SC); Narendra Kumar V/s. Yare- nissa, 1998 ACJ 244 (SC) and Shankar- ayya V/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 1998 ACJ 513 (SC); and of the Division Bench of this court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Siyawati Devi, L.P.A. No. 7 of 1998 (R). 6. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 7. It will be open to the claimants to withdraw a sum of Rs. 25,000 deposited by the appellant in this court at the time of filing of the appeal on proper verification.Appeal dismissed.