JUDGMENT D.P. SINGH and Dr. S. CHANDRA, JJ.--Heard Sri J.N. Mishra, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Deepak Kumar Agarwal, learned Counsel for the private respondents. 2. Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-New India Assurance Company Limited against the impugned award dated 6.1.2007, passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Lucknow in Claim Petition No.7 of 1996. 3. The brief facts of the case are that one Sri Kaushal Kishore died in a road accident on 16.10.1995 at about 7.30 a.m. by a Tempo number UP-32 T-2251. A Claim Petition was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short Tribunal) on the ground that late Kaushal Kishore died on account of rash and negligent driving of the tempo driver. 4. Sri J.N. Mishra, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company does not raise any grievance with regard to quantum of compensation or the interest awarded by the Tribunal. The only submission of the appellant's Counsel is with regard to payment of interest from the date of filing of claim petition before the Tribunal. According to the appellant's Counsel, the claim petition was filed before the Tribunal in April, 1996 and on 25.1.2002, it was ex parte decreed against the owner. Later on, the owner of the vehicle, moved an application for recall of the ex parte order dated 25.1.2002. The learned Tribunal had recalled the ex parte order, on 13.5.2002. After recall of the ex parte order, the Insurance Company was impleaded as defendant and written statements were filed by the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company. The claim was allowed by the Tribunal awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,23,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred the present appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 5. The only grievance of the learned Counsel for the appellant is with regard to payment of interest from the date of filing of claim petition before the Tribunal but certainly he has not challenged the validity of the interest awarded from the date of filing of claim petition before the Tribunal. 5. The only grievance of the learned Counsel for the appellant is with regard to payment of interest from the date of filing of claim petition before the Tribunal but certainly he has not challenged the validity of the interest awarded from the date of filing of claim petition before the Tribunal. The submission of the appellant's Counsel is that since the claimants-respondents had impleaded the appellant only on 23.5.2002 i.e. after lapse of almost six years from the date of filing of the claim petition before the Tribunal, they are not liable to pay interest from the date of filing of the claim petition before the Tribunal. 6. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the appellant was impleaded in the claim petition before the Tribunal only after coming to know through the written statement filed by the owner of the vehicle that the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant. The submission is that since the claimant was not aware with regard to the vehicle having been insured, they had not impleaded the insurance company at initial stage. According to the respondents' Counsel, in case the claimants would have known with regard to insurance of the vehicle, then they could not have pressed for ex parte decree of the claim petition before the Tribunal and insurance company would not have been impleaded. 7. We have considered the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. There appears to be no dispute for the fact that the claim was decreed ex parte on 25.1.2002 against the owner of the vehicle. It is also not disputed that the owner had filed written statement in the year 2002 itself and in the written statement the owner had disclosed that the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant-insurance company. 8. So far as the knowledge of the claimants with regard to insurance of the vehicle in question is concerned, the appellant has not drawn attention of this Court towards any material which may indicate that the claimants were aware of the insurance of the vehicle in question at the time of filing of the claim petition before the Tribunal or even prior to the date when the owner had filed the written statement before the Tribunal. Thus, so far as knowledge of the claimants-respondents with regard to insurance of the vehicle is concerned, it seems to borne out from the record that the claimants became aware with regard to insurance of the vehicle only in the year 2002 after ex parte decree. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellant has placed before us some of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts, which are considered hereinafter. 10. In a case in United India Insurance Company Limited and others v. Patricia Jean Mahajan and others,1 the Hon'ble Supreme Court while interpreting the provision contained in section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act observed that interest is payable on the amount which is payable on the date of award and the rate of interest will be decided keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the particular case. Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the payment of interest to the claimant relying upon the earlier judgment in Smt. Kaushnuma Begam and others v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd..2 The relevant portion is reproduced as under: 1. 2003 (50) ALR 95=2002 (2) TAC 721 (SC). 2. 2001 (42) ALR 635 (SC). "The interest is to be awarded on the amount which is payable on the date of the award. It is also to be noted that in some cases interest at the rate of 6% was awarded. This case however does not help the appellant Insurance Company. The next case which has been cited is Kaushnuma Begum (Smt.) and others v. New India Assurance Company Ltd.,3 in this case interest at the rate of 9% was awarded. The reason indicted in Paragraph 24 of the judgment, we quote hereunder: 3. 2001 (42) ALR 635 (SC). "Now, we have to fix up the rate of interest. Section 171 of the M.V. Act empowers the Tribunal to direct that in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as may be specified in this behalf. Earlier, 12% was found to be the reasonable rate of simple interest With a change in economy and the policy of Reserve Bank of India the interest rate has been lowered. The nationalized banks are now granting interest at the rate of 9% on fixed deposit for one year. Earlier, 12% was found to be the reasonable rate of simple interest With a change in economy and the policy of Reserve Bank of India the interest rate has been lowered. The nationalized banks are now granting interest at the rate of 9% on fixed deposit for one year. We, therefore, direct that the compensation amount fixed herein before shall bear interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim made by the appellants." In our view the reason indicated in the case of Kaushnuma Begum (supra) is a valid reason and it may be noticed that the rate of interest is already on the decline. We, therefore, reduce the rate of interest to 9% in place of 12% as awarded by the High Court." 11. The other judgment relying upon the appellant's Counsel is reported in Abati Bezbaruah v. Deputy Director General Geological Survey of India and another.4 In this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that interest is compensation for forbearance or detention of money and that interest is awarded to a party for his being kept ouf of the money which ought to have been paid to him. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further ruled that no principle can be deduced nor any rate of interest can be fixed to have a general application in motor accident claim cases having regard to nature of provisions contained in section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The relevant portion from the judgment is reproduced as under: 4. 2003 (5) ALR 111 (SC)=2003 (2) TAC 18 (SC). "Interest is compensation for forbearance or detention of money and that interest being awarded to a party only for being kept him out of the money which ought to have been paid to him. No principle can be deduced nor any rate of interest can be fixed to have a general application in motor accident claim cases having regard to nature of provisions contained in section 171 giving discretion to Tribunal in such matter. In other matters, awarding of interest depends upon the statutory provisions, mercantile usage an doctrine of equity. Neither section 34, CPC nor section 4-A(3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act are applicable in the matter of fixing rate of interest in a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. In other matters, awarding of interest depends upon the statutory provisions, mercantile usage an doctrine of equity. Neither section 34, CPC nor section 4-A(3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act are applicable in the matter of fixing rate of interest in a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Courts have awarded the interest at different rates depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, in my opinion, there cannot be any hard and fast rule in awarding interest and the award of interest is solely on the discretion of the Tribunal or the High Court as indicated above." 12. However, in both these cases, relied upon by the appellant's Counsel Hon'ble Supreme Court has not laid down any hard and fast rule to award the compensation along with interest from the date of delivery of award; rather the Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that it shall depend upon the facts and circumstances of the each case. 13. However, reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the appellant on a Division Bench case of Jharkhand High Court in Parikh Engineering and Body Building Company Limited v. Smt. Pramila Karwa and others.1 In this case, the Jharkhand High Court has declined to grant interest from the date of filing of the claim petition on the ground that insurance company was impleaded as a party after about 11 years in spite of the fact that all the insurance particulars were furnished by the appellant long back. Paragraph 5 of the judgment is reproduced as under: 1. 2005 (1) TAC 694 (Jhar.). "Admittedly, it is because of the sheer laches and negligence on the part of the claimants-respondents the Insurance Company was impleaded as party after about 11 years in spite of the fact that all the insurance particulars were furnished by the appellant as far back as in 1995. In our view, the Tribunal has committed serious error of law in holding that the interest for the period prior to 6.4.2002 is payable by the owner of the vehicle. Since it is clear case of negligence and laches on the part of the claimants, we are of the view that no interest on the award amount is liable to be paid to the claimants till 5.4.2002." 14. Since it is clear case of negligence and laches on the part of the claimants, we are of the view that no interest on the award amount is liable to be paid to the claimants till 5.4.2002." 14. We are of the view that the Division Bench judgment of the Jharkhand High Court does not seem to be applicable under the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. In the case before Jharkhand High Court, the claimant in spite of full knowledge that vehicle was insured, had not impleaded insurance company at the initial stage while filing the claim petition. Therefore, the Jharkhand High Court held that the interest should not be paid from the date of filing of the claim petition. 15. However, with profound respect to the Division Bench judgment of the Jharkhand High Court, the question corpped up is as to whether a statutory mandate, contained in section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the Tribunal to pay interest from the date of advancement of the claim can be bypassed. For convenience, section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act is reproduced as under : "171. Award of interest where any claim is allowed.--Where any claims Tribunal may direct that in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as it may specify in this behalf." 16. The other judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant is of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Jay Raj and another v. Kalu Ram and another.1 The case of Jai Raj (supra) seems to be based on different facts and circumstances and not applicable to the present case. Moreover, with profound respect to the Division Bench judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, we do not agree with the proposition of law, laid down by the Madhya Pradesh High Court with regard to payment of interest. 1. 2005 (2) TAC 168 (MP). 17. No other ground or plea has been raised by the appellant's Counsel while assailing the impugned award. 18. Nothing has been brought on record which may indicate that the delay caused in disposal of the writ petition was because of inaction or deliberate act on the part of the claimants respondents. 1. 2005 (2) TAC 168 (MP). 17. No other ground or plea has been raised by the appellant's Counsel while assailing the impugned award. 18. Nothing has been brought on record which may indicate that the delay caused in disposal of the writ petition was because of inaction or deliberate act on the part of the claimants respondents. The litigants should not be blamed or put to suffer only because a suit or claim petition is decided after inordinate delay more so, when they are not at fault. 19. In the present case, the petition, was filed in the year 1996 itself and decreed ex parte after a lapse of almost six years and for that, the claimant cannot be blamed. The claimant approached the Tribunal and was pursuing the matter for its early disposal. It was only when the case was decreed ex parte, the owner of the vehicle approached the Court and prayed for recall of the order. After the ex parte order was recalled, a written statement was filed disclosing that the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant. At the face of record, there appears to be no deliberate delay on the part of the private respondents to prolong the matter. 20. Learned Counsel for the respondents has relied upon a case in Bijoy Kumar Dugar v. Bidyadhar Dutta and others,2 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the claimant shall be entitled for the payment of interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. The contention of the insurance company was rejected by their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court for payment of interest from the date of filing of the written statement. 2. 2006 (63) ALR 354 (SC)=2006 (40) AIC 81=2006 (1) TAC 969 (SC). 21. In one another judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondents in Mohinder Kaur and others v. Hira Nand Sindhi (Ghoriwala and another),3 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has allowed the interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. 3. 2008 (1) TAC 871 (SC). 22. 21. In one another judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondents in Mohinder Kaur and others v. Hira Nand Sindhi (Ghoriwala and another),3 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has allowed the interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. 3. 2008 (1) TAC 871 (SC). 22. Keeping in view the fact that the claimants-respondents were not aware of the vehicle having been insured to the appellant prior to the filing of the written statement by the owner of the vehicle and also the statutory provisions contained in section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, we are of the opinion that the impugned order does not call for any interference. The learned Tribunal has rightly granted the interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. 23. The appeal is devoid of merit. It is accordingly dismissed. 24. No order as to costs. F.A.F.O. Dismissed.