J. N. SARMA, J. - An application was filed being Misc. Case No. 71/2002 with a prayer to convert this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to an application under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India in view of the Full Bench judgment of this court reported in 1992(2) GLR 391 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. -vs- Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lakhimpur and ors) and the Supreme Court judgment in (2000) 4 SCC130 (Chinnama George and ors. Vs. NK Raju and anr.) where in paragraph 6, the Supreme Court pointed out as follows :-" Under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 it is the duty of the insurer to satisfy the award against the person insured in respect of third party risks. It is not that the liability of the insurer in the present case is being disputed. The insurer can defend the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal on certain limited grounds. Admittedly, none of the grounds as given in sub-section (2) of Section 149 exist for t'ie insurer to defend the claims petition. That being so, no right existed in the insurer to file appeal against the award of the Claims Tribunal. However, by adding N the owner as co-appellant, an appeal was filed in the High Court which led to the impugned judgment. The impugned judgment does not reflect any grievance of the owner or even that of the driver of the offending bus against the award of the Claims Tribunal. The insurer by associating the owner or the driver in the appeal when the owner or the driver is not an aggrieved person cannot be allowed to mock at the law which prohibits the insurer from filing any appeal except on the limited grounds on which it could defend the claims petition. The Supreme Court cannot put its stamp of approval as to the validity of the appeal by the insurer merely by associating the insured. Provision of law cannot be undetermined in this way. The Court must give effect to the real purpose to the provision of law relating to the award of compensation in respect of the accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle and cannot permit the insurer the right to defend or appeal on grounds not permitted by law by using a backdoor method. The Court must give effect to the real purpose to the provision of law relating to the award of compensation in respect of the accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle and cannot permit the insurer the right to defend or appeal on grounds not permitted by law by using a backdoor method. Any other interpretation will produce unjust results and open the gates for the insurer to challenge any award. The Court has to give effect to true object of the Act by adopting a purposive approach." The Supreme Court also in that judgment relied on in its earlier judgment reported in (1998) 9 SCC 202 (Narendra Kumar and anr. vs. Yarenissa and others) where the Supreme Court has pointed out in paragraph 7 as follows :- "Even in the case of a joint appeal by insurer and owner of offending vehicle if an award has been made against the tortfeasors as well as the insurer even though an appeal filed by the insurer is not competent, it may not be dismissed as such. The tortfeasor can proceed with the appeal after the cause-title is suitably amended by deleting the name of the insurer." The Supreme Court further pointed out in the case of Chinnama George and ors (supra) that the deciding an appeal filed by the Insurance Company the Court must itself satisfy that the grounds under Section 149 (2) is available and that round was taken in the pleadings and was placed before the Tribunal. If that is not the position, the appeal filed by the insurance company should be thrown out in limine as not maintainable. The Supreme Court pointed out that the court should take care to ascertain this position on proper consideration so that the statutory bar against the insurer in a proceeding of claim of compensation is not rendered irrelevant by the subterfuge of the insurance company joining the insured as a co-appellant in the appeal filed by it. This case subsequently came up for consideration in (2002) 2 SCC 265 (UnitedIndia Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. This case subsequently came up for consideration in (2002) 2 SCC 265 (UnitedIndia Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bhushan Sachdeva and others) before a bench of equal coram and the Supreme Court took a different view in that case distinguishing the earlier cases and held that where the insurer failed to file an appeal against the award of compensation, the insurer could fall within the scope of "any person aggrieved by an award, of a claims Tribunal "and could, therefore, maintain an appeal. It was further pointed out by the Supreme Court that the insurer can contest on all grounds available to the insured. But there also the Supreme Court pointed out that the grounds which are sought to be urged that must be reflected in the pleadings and this must be agitated before the Tribunal. For the first time before the appellate-court some grounds cannot be taken by the insurance company which were never urged/agitated or highlighted before the tribunal. The Supreme Court pointed out that if in any case, it appears that the award is unjust an appeal against it shall be maintainable on this ground alone. 2. That being the position of law as settled by the latest decision of the Supreme Court, we hold that there is no need convert this appeal to an application under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and we have decided to hear this appeal itself. 3. The only grounds urged in the memo of appeal is that (i) the award is unjust an.d on the higherside and (ii) that the award is arbitrary. Mr. Dutta, learned Advocate for the appellant at the time of argument elaborates these grounds and urges that determination of compensation was unjust as because, the learned Tribunal took into consideration the future prospect and loss of retiral benefit etc. which are not factors to be taken into consideration in deciding the quantum of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. He also submits that the amount granted for the loss of future provident fund, gratuity etc. and loss of love and affection is also on the higher side. On the other hand, Mr. Mahanta, learned Advocate for the respondents submits that the award is just and proper. He also submits that the amount granted for the loss of future provident fund, gratuity etc. and loss of love and affection is also on the higher side. On the other hand, Mr. Mahanta, learned Advocate for the respondents submits that the award is just and proper. He further submits that the amount of interest should be @ 12% per annum from the date of application and not @ 6% per annum from the date of the award as awarded by the tribunal. With regard to the grant of interest @ 12% per annum from the date of application Mr. Dutta joins in the issue and submits that the delay in the disposal of the case before the Tribunal was not because of the fault of the insurance company, but because of the delay in disposal of the case by the Tribunal and that liability cannot be thrust on the insurance company. 4. The brief are as follows :- The name of the deceased is late Narendra Singh Chouhan. The date of the accident is 10.12.85. At the time of accident, the age of the deceased was 45 years. He was a Deputy Superintendent of Police under Madhya Pradesh Government and in the year 1985 he .was sent to Assam at the behest of the Union of India for maintenance of law and order. At the time of his accident he was a Commandant (rank of SP) and he was drawing the salary of Rs. 3035/- He left behind the following heirs : (i) Smti Lilawati Chouhan (wife) (ii) Sri Jitendra Singh (son) minor (iii) Sri Kavindra Singh (son) do (iv) Kumari Shalini (daughter) do The deceased was a Master decree holder and joined the police force in the year 1968 and the date of retirement of the deceased was 2001. Immediate next promotion of the deceased was to DIG and thereafter next promotion was upto IGP as he had another 16 years of service to go which can be legally expected that he will go the rank of IGP. After 5th Pay Commission the salary of these officers are as follows :- Commandant (SP) ...12000-375-16500 DIG.... 16400-450-20000 IGP.... 18400-500-22400 All these aspects were taken into consideration by the Tribunal and the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs as the compensation. The claim was made for an amount of Rs. 40 lakhs by giving detailed breakup. After 5th Pay Commission the salary of these officers are as follows :- Commandant (SP) ...12000-375-16500 DIG.... 16400-450-20000 IGP.... 18400-500-22400 All these aspects were taken into consideration by the Tribunal and the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs as the compensation. The claim was made for an amount of Rs. 40 lakhs by giving detailed breakup. There is also evidence that the deceased was given free residential accommodation along with free patrol for certain amount. The Insurance company filed a written statement and that written statement was in the usual form denying its liability in all counts. There was no specific averment in the written statement. The following were the issues framed :- i) Cause of action (ii) rash and negligence driving (iii) whether the claim petition is maintainable ? (iv) Whether the petition is time barred ? (v) whether the claim is bad for nonjoinder and mis joinder of parties and (vi) whether the claimant is entitled to any relief ? On behalf of the claimant the following witnesses were examined. (i) Smti Lilawati Chouhan, wife of the deceased (ii) PW 2 Bacha Singh, driver of the police jeep, (iii) Dr. Hemanta Kumar Mahanta who conducted the postmortem on the deceased (iv) PW 4 is Hitradhar Phukan O/C of Jagiroad Police Station. No witness was examined on behalf of the Insurance company and only cross examination was made on behalf of the Insurance company. 5. Let us take up the first argument advanced by Mr. Dutta that the future prospect cannot be taken into consideration in determining the amount of compensation. That has been answered by the Apex Court in (1994) 2 SCC 176 (General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and others). That was also a case under the Motor Vehicles Act. In paragraph 5 of the judgment the Supreme Court pointed out as follows : "The determination of the quantum must answer what contemporary society "would deem to be a fair sum such as would allow the wrongdoer to hold up his head among his neighbours and say with their approval that he has done the fair thing". The amount awarded , must not be niggardly since the "law values lie and limb in a free society in generous scale". The amount awarded , must not be niggardly since the "law values lie and limb in a free society in generous scale". All this means that the sum awarded must be fair and reasonable by accepted legal standards." In paragraph 8 of the Supreme Court pointed out that in what manner the damage is to be assessed and in paragraph 19 the Supreme Court pointed out that future prospect of a person can be taken into consideration in assessing the compensation and damage and the Supreme Court held that save and except those factors which are prohibited by statute from taking into consideration all other factors must be cumulatively taken into consideration to assess and determined the damage so that just compensation can be arrived at Mr. Dutta failed to show us that future prospect in life has been prohibited by statute from taking into consideration. So the approach taken by the Tribunal to arrive at the compensation by taking that into account is legal and proper. Mr Dutta vehemently submits that this decision of the Apex Court on this question is not a law under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. But this benefit was given in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. We have gone through the case and we find that this submission of Mr. Dutta is not correct. In the case cited above, that is general law as laid down by the Apex Court and this is squarely binding on us. It is not some observation by the Apex Court, but the question arose for determination before the Apex Court and that has been decided by the Apex Court. That being the position it must be accepted to law under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Dutta relied on two decisions, (i) (1991) 4 SCC139 (State ofU.P. andAnr. Vs. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. and am) and (1996) 4 SCC 362 (U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others Vs. Trilok Chandra and others) where the Supreme Court pointed out that certain decision to be law of the land must be considered and explained. Some observation may not be the law. We have no quarel with that proposition. But as quoted above that is not the position in the , case in hand. Citing the decision in (1996) 4 SCC 362 (supra) Mr. Some observation may not be the law. We have no quarel with that proposition. But as quoted above that is not the position in the , case in hand. Citing the decision in (1996) 4 SCC 362 (supra) Mr. Dutta submits that in that particular case determining the compensation, the future prospect was not taken into consideration and as such it must be held that the earlier law as laid down in the case cited above no longer holds the field. We cannot accept this contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. The Supreme Court further pointed out in relying on a English case by quoting the judgment of Viscount Simon that in determining the compensation in such a situation may imponderables enter into the calculation and if those factors are not whimsical, arbitrary and fanciful that can be taken into consideration and should be taken into consideration. So, this case instead of helping the learned counsel for the appellant helps the respondents. 6. On this background now let us to determine the compensation. No doubt Mr. Dutta is right in contending that the determination of compensation by the Tribunal was on the higher side. We apply out mind to that aspect of the matter. According to us taking salary to be Rs. 3035/- and using a multiplier of 15 the total compensation will come to Rs. 3,60,000/-. To that we add 5 lakhs as the loss of future prospect. On the backdrop of the facts as stated above, to that we add loss of retirement benefit, loss of future provident fund gratuity etc. of that person arid for that Rs. one lakh is added. For the loss or love, affection and care to the three minor children, for mental pain and shock and agony suffered by the claimant, we add another Rs. one lakh and total compensation conies to Rs. 10,60,0007-. Accordingly we modify the award to that extent and reduce the award from Rs. 15 lakhs to Rs. 10,60,0007-. The next question which will come is that what should be the rate of interest. Mr. Dutta contends that the interest @ 6% from the date of the award is just and proper in view of the fact that the Insurance Company was not liable for causing delay. 15 lakhs to Rs. 10,60,0007-. The next question which will come is that what should be the rate of interest. Mr. Dutta contends that the interest @ 6% from the date of the award is just and proper in view of the fact that the Insurance Company was not liable for causing delay. The delay was caused due to irregular sitting of the tribunal and some delay was caused due to failure of the claimant. Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents submits that the poor widow had to come from Indore at Madhya Pradesh first to Nagaon and then to Morigaon, but the delay was not on her count. It was caused due to irregular sitting of the tribunal and as the Insurance Company took time on a number of dates. We have looked to the order sheets and we found this contention of the learne.d counsel for the claimant is to be correct. 7. Accordingly, we modify the award of interest. The rate of interest shall be @ 9% from the date of filing of the application till the date of realization of the amount. The amount shall be paid within a period of three months from today. The Insurance Company at 32 Ashok Nagar, Indore shall directly pay trie money by way of crossed cheque or Bank draft to Smti Lalawati Chouhan, w/o late Narendra Singh Chouhan, resident of 32, Ashok Nagar, Tower Choraha, Indore. It is-submitted by Mr. Mahanta that there is an Insurance company office at that address. The total amount shall be divided into 4 equal shares and 4 cheques shall be issued in the name of 4 claimants i.e. wife, two sons and one daughter as the children by now have become major. 4 crossed cheques shall be given by the Insurance company. If the claimants do not receive the money within this period of three months from the Branch office of the Insurance company at Indore, the rate of interest shall be 18% from the date of the award. It is needless to say that whatever has already been paid that shall stand adjusted. No costs. The registry will send a photocopy of the judgment to the respondent No. 1 by registered post to enable her to approach the Branch office or Regional office at Indore to get the money.