FAKHRUDDIN, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') by the applicants-claimants for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Sixth additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior (for short, 'the Tribunal') in claim Case No. 133 of 1988, decided on 23. 7. 1998. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are that on 18. 4. 1985 at about 11 a. m. deceased Harbhanu Singh Sikarwar was going on his motor cycle No. CPG 5252 along with his friend Asharam from village Lalghati to lashkar via Purani Chhawani. At that time tractor No. MBG 6576, being driven by respondent No. 2, Rajaram rashly and negligently at a high speed dashed against the motor cycle; the impact of the dash was so severe that Harbhanu Singh and Asharam fell down and the tractor ran over the motor cycle as a result of which Harbhanu Singh died on the spot, Asharam was seriously injured and the motor cycle was damaged. The matter was reported to the police on the basis of which Crime No. 30 of 1985 for offences under sections 279, 337 and 304-A, Indian Penal Code was registered. Exh. P-4-C is photocopy of the roznamcha which has been proved by Parasram, Head constable of Police, AW 2. At the time of his death, Harbhanu Singh was serving as an Assistant Teacher in the Education department and his salary was Rs. 902 per month. The claimant-applicant-appellant no. 1 is the widow of the deceased and applicants-appellant Nos. 2 to 5 are his minor children. They were wholly dependent upon the deceased. Deceased owned 40 bighas of agricultural land in village lalghati and he used to get agricultural income of Rs. 60,000 per year from agriculture. Applicants-claimants have claimed total compensation of Rs. 5,65,500. At the time of the accident the vehicle (tractor)was owned by respondent No. 1 and it was insured with respondent No. 3, National insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not file any written statement. The respondent No. 3 in its written statement denied the claim of applicants-claimants that deceased was getting annual income of Rs. 60,000 from agriculture. Respondent No. 3 has also denied that at the time of the accident the tractor was insured with it and, as such, it is not liable to pay any compensation. The respondent No. 3 in its written statement denied the claim of applicants-claimants that deceased was getting annual income of Rs. 60,000 from agriculture. Respondent No. 3 has also denied that at the time of the accident the tractor was insured with it and, as such, it is not liable to pay any compensation. It was also contended that at the time of the accident the tractor was being driven without any valid licence and for this reason also the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. ( 3 ) THE learned Tribunal examined the matter and came to the conclusion that on 18. 4. 1985 the accident took place, as alleged, and Harbhanu Singh died on the spot due to the accident caused by the vehicle. It was also held that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 are liable to pay compensation of Rs. 1,36,600 together with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition till realisation. It was, however, held that it was not proved that at the time of the accident the tractor was insured with respondent No. 3 and, as such, the insurance company was exonerated from payment of compensation. This award has been assailed by the claimants-applicants asking for enhanced compensation. ( 4 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material and evidence on record. ( 5 ) SUSHMA Singh, AW 1, who is the widow of the deceased, stated that her husband, deceased Harbhanu Singh, was at the relevant time teacher in the school situated in village Banwar. At the time of his death his salary was Rs. 902 per month. She has four children by the deceased Harbhanu singh and they are claimants-appellant nos. 2 to 5. She stated that the deceased owned 26 bighas of land and used to get a net income of Rs. 50,000 per year. Atibal singh, AW 3, stated that he was coming on his bicycle from the side of Motijheel to Purani Chhawani. From a place ahead of 15-20 cubits from Motijheel he saw a motor cycle standing on the left side of the road, a person was sitting on the seat and another person was standing in front of the motor cycle. Atibal singh, AW 3, stated that he was coming on his bicycle from the side of Motijheel to Purani Chhawani. From a place ahead of 15-20 cubits from Motijheel he saw a motor cycle standing on the left side of the road, a person was sitting on the seat and another person was standing in front of the motor cycle. At that time the offending vehicle bearing registration No. MBG 6576 being driven by respondent No. 2 Rajaram from the side of Motijheel to Shinde ki Chhawani in a high speed went on the right side of the road and dashed against the motor cycle, that the person standing in front of the motor cycle was violently knocked down and ran over by the front wheel of the tractor and the tractor then ran over the motor cycle. At that time a jeep had come in which Harbhanu Singh and Asharam were taken to the hospital. ( 6 ) ASHARAM, AW 4, is the injured. He stated that he had accompanied the deceased on his motor cycle as a pillion rider. He stated that on 18. 4. 1985 at about 11. 30 a. m. near Motijheel petrol pump Harbhanu singh stopped the vehicle on the left side of the road. Harbhanu Singh was standing in front of the motor cycle and he (the witness) was sitting on the seat. While standing Harbhanu Singh's face was towards purani Chhawani. At that time the tractor driven by Rajaram, respondent No. 2, rashly and negligently at a high speed came and went on the right side and dashed against harbhanu Singh from behind due to which he fell down and was pressed by the front wheel of the vehicle and then the tractor ran over the motor cycle and the witness also fell down and received injuries on his head, legs and hands. At that time a jeep had come, and in the jeep Rajaram took the deceased and the witness to the hospital. Thus, it is clearly established that the offending vehicle was being driven by rajaram, respondent No. 2, and due to the accident involving this vehicle Harbhanu singh was injured and he succumbed to the injuries caused in the accident. The fact of the accident and the death of the deceased due to the accident has not been denied by the respondents. The fact of the accident and the death of the deceased due to the accident has not been denied by the respondents. They did not also lead any evidence in rebuttal. The Tribunal held that the burden was on the applicants to prove that the vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 3 at the time of the accident, and the applicants have not discharged this burden. For holding so the Tribunal has not relied on the statement of Omprakash garg, AW 5, Manager of State Bank of india, Mayur Market Branch, Gwalior, where he stated that the banker's cheque no. 371127 dated 13. 9. 1984 for Rs. 2,634 (the photocopy of which is Exh. P-7) was issued by the bank in favour of National insurance Co. Ltd. This amount was the premium of six tractors owned by Janak singh (Rs. 446), Jagvir Singh (Rs. 418), narayan Singh (Rs. 367), Sunder Lal (Rs. 545), Kishanlal Pandey (Rs. 462) and kedar Singh (Rs. 396), and the amount of rs. 545 was debited in the account of sunder Lal. The Tribunal held that it has not been proved by the applicants that the amount of Rs. 545 debited in the account of Sunder Lal was the premium in respect of the offending vehicle. ( 7 ) DURING the pendency of this appeal, an application (LA. No. 6677 of 2000)under Order 41, rule 27, Civil Procedure code has been filed by the appellants in this court on 14. 8. 2000 along with the documents issued by State Bank of India, mayur Market Branch, Gwalior, and the cover note issued by National Insurance co. Ltd. in respect of the vehicle involved in the accident, arid it was prayed, inter alia, that due to suppression of the insurance policy by respondent No. 3, National insurance Co. Ltd. , inordinate delay has been caused and, as such, interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum be granted on the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. It was also submitted that the offending vehicle (tractor No. 6576)was insured with the respondent No. 3, national Insurance Co. Ltd. , Jayendraganj, lashkar, Gwalior. Appellants submitted that they have received information from the State Bank of India, Mayur Market branch, Gwalior, that the premium amount of Rs. 545 paid by banker's cheque to national Insurance Co. Ltd. was towards the premium of the offending vehicle in question. Ltd. , Jayendraganj, lashkar, Gwalior. Appellants submitted that they have received information from the State Bank of India, Mayur Market branch, Gwalior, that the premium amount of Rs. 545 paid by banker's cheque to national Insurance Co. Ltd. was towards the premium of the offending vehicle in question. ( 8 ) THE Tribunal on 28. 8. 1991 by a detailed order directed National Insurance co. Ltd. to produce the cash book regarding deposit of premium of September, 1984 so that on that basis the policy number of the vehicle in question could be ascertained. Despite this order the cash book or the policy has not been produced. Mr. B. N. Malhotra, learned counsel for National Insurance Co. Ltd. , respondent No. 3, was questioned and he had to admit that the amount of premium had been deposited and the offending vehicle in question was insured. Under the circumstances, in view of the material that has come on record, especially the admission which, ultimately, the counsel for the respondent No. 3 had to make, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the vehicle in question is not insured, is not sustainable in law and, as such, is liable to be and is hereby set aside. ( 9 ) THE insurance company in question or any other insurance company is governed under the Insurance Act, 1938 (for short, 'the Act' ). The Act is exhaustive. It is monopolistic. Section 3 of the Act deals with Registration and section 3-A deals with Renewal of the Registration. If the company is not able to trace the policy in spite of the order which was passed on 28. 8. 91 by the Tribunal till decision of the claim case and thereafter during pendency of the appeal despite the detailed order recorded by this court dated 27. 6. 2000, it is a serious matter and of great concern, as it defeats the purpose of insurance and deprives the claimants, of their rightful claim and, on the other hand, affects public exchequer as the insurance company is required to pay interest. Prima facie, in our opinion, it is the statutory duty of the insurance company enshrined in the Act to assist the court. ( 10 ) THE defences available to insurance company under the Act have been specified vis-a-vis the provisos under the Motor vehicles Act are relevant. Prima facie, in our opinion, it is the statutory duty of the insurance company enshrined in the Act to assist the court. ( 10 ) THE defences available to insurance company under the Act have been specified vis-a-vis the provisos under the Motor vehicles Act are relevant. The Motor Vehicles Act is a benevolent and beneficial Act. Non-compliance of the orders coupled with the delay on the one hand deprives the claimants of their rightful claim and, on the other hand, puts the burden on the insurance company with the liability to pay the interest. In the instant case, the matter is pending since 1985 and if slight effort would have been made subsequent to the passing of the order dated 28. 8. 1991, the matter would have been settled long back, and the insurance company would not have been required to pay the interest. It is after all the public money, and the monopolistic business has to be carried on under the provisions of the statute. ( 11 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, we directed on 27. 6. 2000 the General Manager of respondent No. 3 and the General Insurance Co. Ltd. through its managing Director to hold an inquiry with an object that such delay and lapses should not occur in future. The inquiry was also directed with an object to see as to who are the erring officers and whether any administrative measures are required. With these objects in view, it was directed that the report be submitted to this court, duly supported by an affidavit of the General Manager of respondent No. 3 within three months. Thereafter, an enquiry report signed by S. P. Bhide along with an affidavit of O. K. Pant, general Manager of National Insurance co. Ltd. , was submitted. However, this report submitted was not in terms of the directions issued by this court on 27. 6. 2000. Under the facts and circumstances, notice to show cause was directed to be issued to the General Manager of National Insurance co. Ltd. , O. K. Pant, as to why he should not be punished for disobedience and contempt of the order of the court. Thereafter mr. A. M. Naik, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, submitted reply and stated that inquiry has now been conducted by the 'competent officer. Ltd. , O. K. Pant, as to why he should not be punished for disobedience and contempt of the order of the court. Thereafter mr. A. M. Naik, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, submitted reply and stated that inquiry has now been conducted by the 'competent officer. Learned counsel further stated that wherever the amounts have been awarded in claim cases, most of them have been cleared by actual deposits of the amounts and if some cases remain to be cleared thorough scrutiny shall be made and those cases will be cleared as early as possible in the State of Madhya Pradesh. It is submitted at the Bar that the Regional managers would be deputed for that and all efforts will be made to make expeditious disposal of cases arising out of accident claims. It is also submitted that the authorities will not give any further opportunity like the one in the present case. In view of this statement made at the Bar, the reply and the affidavit filed, the notice issued to D. K. Pant, the General Manager of National Insurance Co. Ltd. , to show cause, is discharged and the proceedings are dropped. ( 12 ) ON the basis of the above evidence, the Tribunal worked out the income of the deceased at Rs. 902 per month and after deducting the personal expenses of the deceased, the dependency of the family was assessed at Rs. 600 per month. The annual dependency was, thus, assessed at (Rs. 600 x 12) Rs. 7,200. Taking the age of the deceased to be 30 years at the time of the accident, the Tribunal has adopted multiplier of 18 as per the Second Schedule to Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the total dependency was assessed at Rs. 1,29,600 (i. e. , Rs. 7,200 x 18 = Rs. 1,29,600), yet in the award the amount shown is Rs. 1,11,600 which appears to us to be a typographical mistake, and we take the amount of total dependency to be Rs. 1,29,600. To add to this, a sum of Rs. 25,000 for loss of consortium has been awarded. Thus, the total amount of compensation of Rs. 1,54,600 was awarded. ( 13 ) WE have considered the evidence on record and the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. 1,29,600. To add to this, a sum of Rs. 25,000 for loss of consortium has been awarded. Thus, the total amount of compensation of Rs. 1,54,600 was awarded. ( 13 ) WE have considered the evidence on record and the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. It has come in the testimony of Sushma Singh, widow of the deceased, AW 1 (applicant No. 1- appellant No. 1) that in addition to his job as government teacher the deceased was doing agriculture also. He was doing agriculture by means of a tractor which he purchased on taking a loan from the Central bank of India. She stated that the deceased had 26 bighas of land situated in Lalghati which was an irrigated field and he used to earn a net income of Rs. 50,000 per year. Atibal Singh, AW 3, also stated that the deceased had 20-22 bighas of land in his possession, he was cultivating this land, which was irrigated, he had tractor which he was using for agricultural purposes. He further stated that the deceased used to get an income of Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 60,000 per year from agriculture. This evidence stands unrebutted by the respondents. While assessing the dependency the Tribunal has not taken into consideration this piece of evidence. In the light of this evidence regarding income from agriculture, in our opinion, the monthly dependency assessed by the Tribunal appears to be on the lower side. Therefore, we assess the monthly dependency at Rs. 800. Thus, the annual dependency works out to Rs. 9,600 and total dependency is assessed at Rs. 1,72,800 (i. e. , Rs. 9,600 x 18 = Rs. 1,72,800 ). The award of Rs. 25,000 granted for loss of consortium, in our opinion, is excessive and we reduce this amount and grant rs. 7,000 under this head. Thus, taking the totality of the facts and circumstances and the material on record, the compensation arrived at Rs. 1,54,600 by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 1,79,800 which is rounded off to rs. 1,80,000 (rupees one lakh eighty thousand ). ( 14 ) INTEREST calculated by the Tribunal at the rate of 6 per cent per annum also, in our opinion, appears to be on the lower side. In view of the recent decision of the apex Court in Kaushnuma Begum v. New india Assurance Co. 1,79,800 which is rounded off to rs. 1,80,000 (rupees one lakh eighty thousand ). ( 14 ) INTEREST calculated by the Tribunal at the rate of 6 per cent per annum also, in our opinion, appears to be on the lower side. In view of the recent decision of the apex Court in Kaushnuma Begum v. New india Assurance Co. Ltd. , 2001 ACJ 428 (SC), interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum is awarded. Thus, the amount of compensation of Rs. 1,80,000 enhanced by this court shall carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum, payable from the date of the claim petition till realisation. If the respondent No. 3, National Insurance co. Ltd. , has already deposited the amount with interest awarded by the Tribunal, that shall be adjusted and the amount enhanced by this court together with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum shall be deposited with the Tribunal within three months from today, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. ( 15 ) THE appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. Counsel's fee as per Schedule, if certified. Appeal partly allowed. .