JUDGMENT 1. - The matter is placed on the Board as the notice of respondent No. 2 received unserved. 2. Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the respondent No. 2 is only a proforma party and for the decision of the appeal the service of notice upon him is not necessary and prayed for dispensation of service. The prayer, made by the learned counsel for the parties, is granted and the service of notice of appeal on the respondent No. 2 is dispensed with.With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the appeal is taken up for final hearing. 3. This appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed against the order dated 26.5.2004 of the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 862/2004 preferred by the non-claimant respondent, the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, against the award dated 10.3.2004 of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short, the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 82/2004 (495/2000) of the claimant appellant. Under that award the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,43,640/- as compensation' to the claimant appellant. The learned Single Judge, under the impugned award, declined to make any interference in the award as it relates to the award of compensation in the sum of Rs. 2,43,640/-, however, the learned Single Judge set aside the award of the learned Tribunal to the extent it relates to the award of interest on the amount of compensation in favour of the claimant appellant, thus this special appeal. 4. We find sufficient merit and substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the claimant appellant that the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of P.J. Narayan v. United India Insurance Company Limited (2004 ACJ 542) is not of much help to the non-claimant respondent Corporation; that was the case under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The interest is awarded on the amount of compensation, as the same is not paid immediately to the claimant and more particularly on the date on which it has to be paid to him. The claimant has been deprived of use of the benefits and fruits of the amount of compensation for all the years i.e. till the award was made in his favour. The claimant has been deprived of use of the benefits and fruits of the amount of compensation for all the years i.e. till the award was made in his favour. To compensate for this loss the interest is awarded on the amount of compensation; that apart, the learned counsel for the non- claimant respondent Corporation has failed to point out any good and sufficient ground to justify. the denial of interest on the amount of compensation to the claimant appellant. Merely because the adequate compensation has been awarded to the claimant appellant, it is not a sufficient ground to deny the interest on the amount of compensation. We cannot be oblivious of the fact that where the amount of compensation is paid within time and the amount is deposited in the FDA or in some other saving scheme, certainly the poor claimant would have received the interest thereon. 5. As a result of the aforesaid discussion the appeal succeeds and the same is allowed. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge is quashed and set aside. The award of the learned Tribunal under which the interest has been awarded to the claimant appellant on the amount of compensation is up held. *******