JUDGMENT : Abhay S. Oka, J. 1. By preferring this appeal the appellants have taken exception to the judgment and award dated 22.8.91, passed by the learned Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Pune in a claim petition u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act of 1939'). The appellants and the respondent No. 4 are the original claimants. 2. With a view to appreciate the submissions which are made in this appeal, it will be necessary to refer to the facts of the case in brief. The appellants and the respondent No. 4 filed a claim petition on 22.11.1983 claiming compensation on account of injuries sustained by their father Tikamdas Shamdas Sippy on 31.5.1983 in a motor accident. According to the case made out in the claim petition, the said Tikamdas (since deceased) was crossing the Ambedkar Road at Pune opposite the Nehru Memorial Hall along with his friend Chandmal Gangaramani. At that time a scooter bearing registration No. MZF 8412 driven by the respondent No. 1 gave a dash to the said Tikamdas. According to the case made out in the claim petition, the respondent No. 1 was driving the scooter in a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. The said Tikamdas received multiple injuries as a result of the accident and his left leg and left hand were badly fractured. He became unconscious as a result of the injuries and was immediately taken to K.E.M. General Hospital. On the next day he was taken to Dudani Accident Clinic. The said Tikamdas was a retired government servant getting monthly pension of Rs. 305. It is stated that after retirement he was doing active social service and was enjoying a very good health. 3. It is alleged in the claim petition that even after undergoing surgery, Tikamdas was not able to move his left hand. It is alleged that in the accident Tikamdas received some brain injury as a result of which he has become mentally imbalanced and disturbed. It was stated that it became impossible for Tikamdas to walk on his own. It was stated that because of such physical and mental condition, a permanent attendant was required to be employed for him. It is stated that considering good health enjoyed by Tikamdas he would have survived for at least 20 years. It was stated that it became impossible for Tikamdas to walk on his own. It was stated that because of such physical and mental condition, a permanent attendant was required to be employed for him. It is stated that considering good health enjoyed by Tikamdas he would have survived for at least 20 years. It is stated that due to the accident, Tikamdas was deprived of all the happiness and satisfaction of life as he became permanently invalid and disabled. It is stated that he required presence of an attendant 24 hours. It is stated that the disablement of Tikamdas became constant source of worry and tension for the claimants as well as their family members. Originally a claim of Rs. 65,000 was made by the appellants and the respondent No. 4. It was alleged that as the said Tikamdas was not in a fit condition to sign the claim petition the same was being filed by his sons. 4. During the pendency of the claim petition on 7.2.1987 the said Tikamdas expired. Therefore, an amendment was carried out to the claim petition and the claim for compensation was enhanced to Rs. 3,00,000. 5. It was alleged in the claim petition that the respondent No. 2 was the owner of the scooter which was validly insured with insurance company, respondent No. 3, on the date of the accident. 6. The respondent No. 1 filed his written statement and contended that he was plying his scooter very carefully in a slow speed. According to the respondent No. 1 there were two autorickshaws proceeding ahead of him. He alleged that Tikamdas was very old and was not in a position to control himself. The respondent No. 1 alleged that the said Tikamdas with the help of the person accompanying him had already crossed the road and had reached up to the road divider. However, all of a sudden he turned back and he himself fell on the running scooter of the respondent No. 1 and fell down. The respondent No. 1 contended that he himself along with the help of his pillion rider took the said Tikamdas to K.E.M. General Hospital and admitted him to the said hospital. The allegations of negligence were denied by the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 contended that he himself along with the help of his pillion rider took the said Tikamdas to K.E.M. General Hospital and admitted him to the said hospital. The allegations of negligence were denied by the respondent No. 1. He stated that though he was the owner of the scooter on the relevant date, the same stood in the name of the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 1 admitted that the scooter was validly insured with the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 1 denied the allegation that the said Tikamdas was not in a position to sign the claim petition. 7. The respondent No. 3 filed written statement to the unamended claim petition. The respondent No. 3 did not admit that the scooter involved in the accident was insured with it. The respondent No. 3 did not admit that the respondent No. 2 was the owner of the scooter and that the respondent No. 1 was driving the same. The respondent No. 3 raised a preliminary objection that though the said Tikamdas was alive, he had not filed the claim petition and, therefore, the claim petition filed by the claimants on his behalf was not maintainable. An additional written statement was filed by the respondent No. 3. In the said additional written statement, the respondent No. 3 contended that the right and liability of the respondent No. 3 was governed by the provisions of the policy and as per the policy, the respondent No. 3 was not liable to pay a sum of Rs. 3,00,000. The respondent No. 2 did not file written statement. 8. By the impugned judgment and award, the learned Member of the Tribunal held that it was not proved by the claimants that the scooter was validly insured with the respondent No. 3, the said respondent was not liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal held that claimants have proved that the deceased Tikamdas sustained injuries and suffered permanent disability as a result of the accident which occurred on 31.5.1983 involving the scooter owned by the respondent No. 2 and driven by the respondent No. 1. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 27,300 being the salary paid to the attendant of the deceased at the rate of Rs. 700 per month for a period of three years and three months. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 27,300 being the salary paid to the attendant of the deceased at the rate of Rs. 700 per month for a period of three years and three months. The Tribunal held that the appellant No. 1 had received a sum of Rs. 25,000 from his employer Telco towards medical reimbursement. The Tribunal held that out of further amount of Rs. 12,658 claimed by the claimants towards medical expenses, the amount paid to Usha Nursing Home and Jahangir Nursing Home will not be payable to the claimants as it was likely that the claimants might have claimed the said amount from Telco. The total amount of compensation of Rs. 31,537.45 was awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants. However, Claims Tribunal did not grant interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. The Tribunal directed that if compensation amount was not paid by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 within a period of one month from the date of award, the said amount will carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the award till realization. The present appeal has been preferred by the original claimant Nos. 1 and 2 for seeking enhancement in compensation. The respondent No. 2 filed cross-objection. 9. Appellant No. 1 appeared in person for himself and on behalf of the appellant No. 2 has filed written submissions. The submissions of the appellants can be summarised in brief as under: A grievance has been made by claimants that the claim petition remained pending for a long time before the Tribunal. A submission is made that the respondent No. 3 raised a false contention before the Tribunal that the scooter was not insured at the time of accident. It was pointed out that 10 years after the claim was filed, the respondent No. 3 took up a stand that the said respondent was trying to locate the policy of the insurance. The submission of the appellants is that in the additional written statement, the respondent No. 3 admitted the existence of the insurance policy. It is pointed out that a certificate issued by the R.T.O. was produced showing that the scooter was validly insured with the respondent No. 3. The submission of the appellants is that in the additional written statement, the respondent No. 3 admitted the existence of the insurance policy. It is pointed out that a certificate issued by the R.T.O. was produced showing that the scooter was validly insured with the respondent No. 3. He submitted that even the respondent No. 1 admitted that the vehicle was validly insured with the respondent No. 3. It is pointed out that notices were issued by the appellants to the respondent No. 3 calling upon the said respondent to produce the policy of insurance as mentioned in the R.T.O. certificate and there was no response to the said notices. Appellants pointed out that the hearing of the claim petition commenced only after a representation was made by them to the District Court. It is submitted that Tribunal could not have allowed the advocate for the insurance company to cross-examine the witnesses examined by the appellants as the respondent No. 3 was not entitled to defend the claim on merits. It was submitted that the learned Member of the Tribunal has not properly perused record of the case. It was pointed out that along with list, Exh. 34, large number of original bills were produced by the appellants. It was submitted that claim of Rs. 12,658.24 for medicine, claim of Rs. 1,207 for Fowler cot and the claim of Rs. 4,500 towards furniture/chairs ought to have been allowed by the Tribunal. It was pointed out that as far as salary to the attendant is concerned, the same should have been allowed for a period of three years and nine months and not for three years and three months. It is submitted that claim of Rs. 800 per month for lodging and boarding of the attendant for 45 months ought to have been allowed by the Tribunal. It was submitted that there was no reason to deny interest on compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition. It was submitted that a minimum amount of Rs. 1,32,134.90 ought to have been awarded. It was submitted that considering the mental and physical shock suffered by deceased Tikamdas as well as by the claimants and other relatives, compensation of Rs. 3,00,000 was certainly reasonable. 10. The learned Counsel appearing for the legal representatives of the respondent No. 2 have also filed written submissions supporting the cross-objection. 1,32,134.90 ought to have been awarded. It was submitted that considering the mental and physical shock suffered by deceased Tikamdas as well as by the claimants and other relatives, compensation of Rs. 3,00,000 was certainly reasonable. 10. The learned Counsel appearing for the legal representatives of the respondent No. 2 have also filed written submissions supporting the cross-objection. It was contended that the scooter was transferred by the respondent No. 2 to the respondent No. 1 on 8.2.1983 and in any event on the date of the accident, there was a valid policy of insurance issued by the respondent No. 3 which was effective from 7.2.1983 to 6.2.1984. It was submitted that even assuming that notwithstanding the transfer of the scooter if it was held that the respondent No. 2 was liable to pay compensation, the same ought to be paid by the respondent No. 3 being the insurer of the scooter. A xerox copy of the policy of insurance issued by the respondent No. 3 has been produced by the legal representatives of the respondent No. 2 along with their written submissions. 11. The respondent No. 1 also filed written submissions opposing the appeal. It was contended that the scooter was validly insured with the respondent No. 3 as evidenced by the certificate issued by the R.T.O., Pune and, therefore, the respondent No. 3 is liable to pay compensation. It was submitted that the death of the said Tikamdas has nothing to do with the injuries sustained in the accident. 12. The respondent No. 3 has also filed written submissions. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 fairly stated that on the date of the accident the vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 3. He admitted the correctness of the xerox copy of policy produced by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 in the appeal. He, however, submitted that on the date of the accident the vehicle was already transferred by the respondent No. 2 to the respondent No. 1 without notice to the respondent No. 3 and, therefore, the respondent No. 3 is not liable to pay the compensation. 13. He, however, submitted that on the date of the accident the vehicle was already transferred by the respondent No. 2 to the respondent No. 1 without notice to the respondent No. 3 and, therefore, the respondent No. 3 is not liable to pay the compensation. 13. He submitted that as per Rule 310 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules, 1959, Rules 1 to 15 of Order 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 were applicable to the proceedings of a claim petition filed u/s 110-A of the said Act of 1939. He submitted that even assuming that Tikamdas was not in a position to understand or was not in a position to sign, the claim petition could have been filed by him through a next friend. Placing the reliance on decisions of Punjab as well as Karnataka High Courts he submitted that the appellants and respondent No. 4 could not have filed claim petition during the lifetime of deceased Tikamdas. He submitted that as the claim application itself was not maintainable this is a fit case for invoking power of this Court under Rule 33 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and to set aside the award on the ground that the claim petition itself was not maintainable. He submitted that the claimants had no authority to file the claim petition. 14. Further submission of respondent No. 3 is that even assuming that the claim petition was maintainable, the claimants are not entitled to claim any compensation on account of death of the said Tikamdas as it is not established that the death was caused due to injuries sustained in the accident. He submitted that due to demise of the injured during the pendency of the claim petition, his legal representatives can prosecute claim petition only insofar as loss to the estate of the deceased is concerned. He has placed reliance on various decisions of this Court as well as other High Courts. 15. The appellant No. 1 appearing in person has made oral submissions for dealing with various decisions relied upon by the respondent No. 3. He submitted that none of the said judgments are applicable to the facts of the present case. 16. I have considered the aforesaid submissions. I have also perused the notes of evidence and the record of the Tribunal. He submitted that none of the said judgments are applicable to the facts of the present case. 16. I have considered the aforesaid submissions. I have also perused the notes of evidence and the record of the Tribunal. The respondent No. 1 has not challenged the finding recorded against him of rash and negligent driving. Considering the aforesaid submissions the following points arise for determination of this Court: (i) Whether the claim petition filed by the original claimants during the lifetime of deceased Tikamdas was maintainable in law? (ii) Whether the claimants are entitled to claim compensation on account of death of the said Tikamdas during the pendency of the claim petition? (iii) Whether the respondent No. 3 is liable to satisfy the award made against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2? (iv) Whether the claimants are entitled to enhancement in compensation? 17. In the claim petition filed by the claimants (appellants and the respondent No. 4) it is asserted as under: (VI) The applicants are the only legal representatives of the injured. The injured not being in a fit condition and adequate health to sign this application, this application is filed by his three sons, on whom the injured is completely dependent and only they are looking after him since the accident took place. 18. The appellant No. 1 deposed on behalf of the claimants. Insofar as the aspect of authority of the claimants to file claim petition is concerned, there is no cross-examination made by any of the respondents. In the claim petition, the claimants have claimed to be legal representatives of Tikamdas. In the claim petition it is disclosed that the claimants are the sons of the said Tikamdas. The fact that the claimants are sons of Tikamdas has not been disputed in the written statement of any of the respondents. The claim petition was filed on 22.11.1983 and during the pendency of the claim petition, on 7.2.1987 the said Tikamdas expired. An amendment was carried out to the claim petition. By the said amendment the claimants contended that the said Tikamdas expired on 7.2.1987 due to accidental injuries. 19. Whether the said Tikamdas died due to injuries suffered in the accident or not is a different question which will have to be decided independently. An amendment was carried out to the claim petition. By the said amendment the claimants contended that the said Tikamdas expired on 7.2.1987 due to accidental injuries. 19. Whether the said Tikamdas died due to injuries suffered in the accident or not is a different question which will have to be decided independently. However, it cannot be disputed that the claimants could have lawfully filed the claim petition after the demise of Tikamdas claiming compensation on the basis of the allegation that Tikamdas died due to injuries sustained by him in the accident. The learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3, insurer, has placed reliance on a decision of the Division Bench of Panaji Bench of this Court in the case of Skoda Afonso (deceased) through L.Rs. Vs. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and Others. The Division Bench was dealing with a case where an injured person filed a claim application for seeking compensation on account of injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. The said claim petition was dismissed in default. During the pendency of the claim petition, the original claimant expired. The legal representatives of the claimant filed an application to bring themselves on record. The said application as well as application for restoration was dismissed by the trial court. In para 6 of the decision of the Division Bench held thus: (6)...It does not sound to reason that if initially the claimant who has filed claim for compensation due to injuries on account of the accident dies during the pendency of the claim application and the death can be directly co-related with the injuries suffered by him in the accident, then the legal representatives should not be permitted to pursue the claim petition as originally filed by the petitioner. The position would be different in cases where death of claimant during pendency of claim petition is not on account of injuries suffered in the accident and in such cases the cause of action would survive for legal representatives only insofar as loss to the estate is concerned. In para 8 the Division Bench has observed thus: (8) Be that as it may, if the death of the claimant is not on account of the injuries suffered in the accident, then the cause of action would survive in favour of the legal representatives insofar as loss to the estate is concerned. In para 8 the Division Bench has observed thus: (8) Be that as it may, if the death of the claimant is not on account of the injuries suffered in the accident, then the cause of action would survive in favour of the legal representatives insofar as loss to the estate is concerned. This proposition is in fact well settled by a number of rulings upon which reliance has been placed by the learned advocate for the petitioners including a Division Bench ruling of this Court in Maimuna Begum and Others Vs. Taju Khan and Others, In para 8 the Division Bench further observed as under: (8)...The Division Bench in para 11 of the judgment came to the conclusion that even the legal representatives can claim damages for loss to the estate of the deceased and it is difficult to see as to why an action initiated by an injured for damages on account of loss to his property should not be made to survive to his legal representatives on his death pending an action already launched by him.... In para 9 the Division Bench proceeded to observe that: (9) We are in respectful agreement with the proposition of law laid down by the Division Bench and this ruling of the Division Bench has been followed by another Division Bench of this Court in Hiru K. Borkar v. Suresh B. Kankonkar F.A. No. 31 of 1995.... Thus, if the injured person dies during the pendency of a claim petition on account of the injuries suffered by him due to the accident, his heirs can either file a fresh claim petition for compensation after the death of the injured person or can apply to substitute themselves in place of the original claimant (injured) and can claim compensation on account of his death. If the injured himself had filed a claim petition and even if it was not established that his death was due to injuries sustained in the accident, his legal representatives can prosecute the original claim petition for claiming compensation to the extent of the loss to the estate of the deceased. 21. In the present appeal, while dealing with the second question I have held that there is no evidence on record to show that the deceased died due to injuries sustained in the accident. 21. In the present appeal, while dealing with the second question I have held that there is no evidence on record to show that the deceased died due to injuries sustained in the accident. Therefore, the question which arises is whether the claim petition filed during the lifetime of Tikamdas by the claimants claiming compensation on account of injuries sustained by Tikamdas was maintainable? There is no dispute that the claimants are the legal representatives being the sons of deceased Tikamdas. Had the claim petition been filed by Tikamdas himself, the present claimants after the demise of Tikamdas could have brought themselves on record and could have prosecuted the claim to extent of loss to estate of the deceased. Therefore, on the day on which the claim petition was decided by the Tribunal, the claim made by the claimants to the extent of loss to estate of the deceased was maintainable. Therefore, the question whether the claim petition as originally filed by the claimants was maintainable recedes to the background in the light of the subsequent unfortunate demise of Tikamdas. The said question becomes academic as it cannot be disputed that on the date on which the claim petition was amended and on the date on which the same was decided, the claimants were entitled to claim compensation to the extent of loss to estate of the deceased. Therefore, the first point for determination will have to be answered accordingly. 22. Now turning to the second point for determination, it will be necessary to refer to the evidence of Dr. Baldev G. Gudani examined by the claimants. He described the injuries sustained by the deceased. He has also deposed regarding surgery undergone by the deceased. He has stated that for a period of six months, the deceased was under his treatment. He deposed that during his old age the said Tikamdas had sustained a head injury and, therefore, he was not mentally very sound. Apart from Dr. Baldev G. Gudani, the claimants have not examined any other medical practitioner to prove that the deceased died as a consequence of injury sustained by him in the accident. It must be noted here that the accident occurred on 31.5.1983 and Tikamdas expired on 7.2.1987, i.e., more than three and half years after the accident. At the time of accident age of Tikamdas was 74 years. It must be noted here that the accident occurred on 31.5.1983 and Tikamdas expired on 7.2.1987, i.e., more than three and half years after the accident. At the time of accident age of Tikamdas was 74 years. There is no evidence on record to substantiate the case made out that the injuries sustained by Tikamdas have caused the death or have accelerated the death. Therefore, learned Tribunal was right in denying compensation on account of death of Tikamdas. Thus, the entitlement of the claimants (appellants and the respondent No. 4) is to an amount representing the loss to estate of the deceased Tikamdas as a result of injuries sustained by the deceased Tikamdas. The second question is answered accordingly. 23. The claimants produced on record a certificate dated 22.7.1983 issued by the R.T.O., Pune which records that scooter was validly insured with the respondent No. 3 for the period between 7.2.1983 to 6.2.1984. The said certificate was produced along with the application u/s 92-A of the said Act of 1939 filed by the claimants. In the first written statement filed by the said respondent, Exh. 15 on 19.10.1984 the respondent No. 3 denied existence of policy of insurance. In the additional written statement filed on 22.12.1988, Exh. 29 in para 3 thereof the respondent No. 3 has stated as under: (3) The right and liability of this opponent is governed by the provisions of the policy. As per the provision of the policy this opponent is not liable to pay Rs. 3,00,000. In any case, therefore, the claim is not sustainable. The appellant No. 1 in his evidence relied upon R.T.O. certificate at Exh. 47 and stated that the scooter was insured by the respondent No. 3. The additional written statement filed by the respondent No. 3 seems to suggest that the respondent No. 3 accepted the fact that there was a policy of insurance. Perusal of the file 'D' shows that the appellants had issued a notice to produce dated 3.1.1991, Exh. 60/4 to the respondent No. 3 calling upon the respondent No. 3 to produce the policy of insurance as per the policy number mentioned in the R.T.O. certificate at Exh. 47. Even the postal acknowledgment, Exh. 60/5 of the said notice to produce is on record. 60/4 to the respondent No. 3 calling upon the respondent No. 3 to produce the policy of insurance as per the policy number mentioned in the R.T.O. certificate at Exh. 47. Even the postal acknowledgment, Exh. 60/5 of the said notice to produce is on record. There is nothing on record to show that there was any reply filed to the said notice to produce by the said respondent No. 3. The notice to produce had been issued on 3.1.1991 and the claim petition was decided on 22.8.1991. There was already R.T.O. certificate on record which mentions the policy number and the period of validity. There was a notice to produce the original policy admittedly received by the respondent No. 3 in January 1991. Para 3 of the additional written statement indicates that the respondent No. 3 did not dispute the existence of policy and contended that policy does not cover liability of Rs. 3,00,000. From para 11 of the impugned judgment it appears that even at the time of hearing of the claim petition, notwithstanding the stand taken in the additional written statement, the respondent No. 3 reiterated that there was no policy of insurance. Therefore, the learned Member of the Tribunal held that in absence of a copy of policy, it cannot be said that the vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 3. 24. The respondent No. 2, i.e., policy holder did not contest the claim petition. As pointed out earlier now a xerox copy of the policy has been produced in appeal by the legal representatives of the respondent No. 2 and correctness of the xerox copy of the policy of insurance has been fairly admitted by learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3. 25. When certificate issued by R.T.O. was produced on record showing the existence of the policy and when a notice to produce the policy was admittedly served to the respondent No. 3, it was the duty of the respondent No. 3 to make an effort to trace out the policy. None of the officers of the respondent No. 3 stepped into witness-box to state that though a verification of the records was made on the basis of the number disclosed in the R.T.O. certificate, the policy could not be traced out. None of the officers of the respondent No. 3 stepped into witness-box to state that though a verification of the records was made on the basis of the number disclosed in the R.T.O. certificate, the policy could not be traced out. In fact, no case has been made out by the respondent No. 3 before the Tribunal that any effort was made to ascertain whether there was a policy of insurance. It was the duty of the respondent No. 3 to make an effort to ascertain whether really there was a valid policy when the R.T.O. certificate was produced giving details of the policy. The respondent No. 3 did not give any reply to the notice to produce policy. If evidence was led to show that an effort was made to find out the policy and the policy could not be traced, it would have been another matter. In the present case though in additional written statement the existence of the policy was admitted by the respondent No. 3 still a submission was made before the Tribunal that respondent No. 3 is not liable for want of the policy. Only after a xerox copy of the policy is produced by respondent No. 2 along with the written submissions dated 30.10.2007, now the respondent No. 3 has accepted the existence of the policy. To put it mildly a dishonest stand was taken by the respondent No. 3 before the Tribunal by denying the existence of policy. As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the claim as against the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 had accepted the premium and had issued a valid policy. It is obvious that in view of decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rikhi Ram and Another Vs. Smt. Sukhrania and Others, the insurance company, respondent No. 3, will continue to be liable even if the respondent No. 2 had not given intimation of transfer of the scooter to the respondent No. 3. 26. As stated earlier, it must be recorded that a very irresponsible stand was taken by the respondent No. 3 by denying the existence of the policy. The respondent No. 3 had taken the matter very casually. Therefore, this is a fit case where the respondent No. 3 will have to be saddled with compensatory costs. The claim petition is of the year 1983 and appeal is of the year 1991. The respondent No. 3 had taken the matter very casually. Therefore, this is a fit case where the respondent No. 3 will have to be saddled with compensatory costs. The claim petition is of the year 1983 and appeal is of the year 1991. The compensatory costs will have to be quantified at Rs. 15,000. 27. Now turning to the quantification of quantum of compensation, the learned Member of the Tribunal accepted the case made out by the original claimants that they had engaged services of one Shivaji Narayan Gaikwad on full-time basis for looking after the deceased. The learned Member of the Tribunal accepted the case made out by the claimants that they were required to engage an attendant at salary of Rs. 700 per month for a period of 39 months. The contention of the appellants is that they had engaged another attendant for a period of six months. However, the appellant No. 1 has not even disclosed the name of the said attendant. Hence, the said claim has been rightly rejected. 28. It will be necessary to refer to the deposition of appellant No. 1 on the issue of quantum. According to the case of the appellant No. 1 a wheelchair was required to be purchased at the cost of Rs. 1,200 for the deceased as the deceased had become immobile due to injuries sustained in the accident. According to his case a commode was required to be purchased by spending Rs. 1,400. The appellant No. 1 has not specifically deposed about the other items of furniture allegedly required to be purchased by him. Apart from producing the documents relating to the said two amounts, along with Exh. 34 the claimants produced original bills of medicines as well as Xerox copies bills of Usha Nursing Home and Jahangir Nursing Home totally amounting toRs. 12,658. 29. In the cross-examination of the appellant No. 1 a suggestion was given to the appellant No. 1 regarding receipt of certain amount by way of reimbursement from his employer Telco. The appellant No. 1 clearly stated that he got a sum of Rs. 25,000 towards the medical reimbursement on the basis of bills submitted by him to his employer. However, he specifically stated that the bills which are submitted in the court were different and the reimbursement granted by Telco was in respect of other bills. 30. The appellant No. 1 clearly stated that he got a sum of Rs. 25,000 towards the medical reimbursement on the basis of bills submitted by him to his employer. However, he specifically stated that the bills which are submitted in the court were different and the reimbursement granted by Telco was in respect of other bills. 30. The learned Member of the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs. 27,300 by way of salary paid to the attendant Shivaji Gaik-wad for a period of three years and three months at the rate of Rs. 700 per month. Out of the sum of Rs. 12,658, the learned Member of the Tribunal observed that bills issued by Usha Nursing Home and Jahangir Nursing Home totally amounting to Rs. 7,145.55 were not produced in original and only xerox copies were produced. The learned Member of the Tribunal observed that it was likely that claimants must have received the amounts payable under the said bills from Telco. Therefore, out of amount of Rs. 12,658 learned trial Judge granted only an amount of Rs. 4,237.45. There are three bills of which xerox copies are produced by the claimants in the sum of Rs. 3,350, Rs. 2,693.90 and Rs. 1,351.65 (of Jahangir Nursing Home and Usha Nursing Home) respectively. No suggestion was given to the appellant No. 1 that he had received reimbursement of the said bills. Therefore, there was no material for drawing an inference that claimants must have received the said bill amounts from the employer of the appellant No. 1. Therefore, the claim of Rs. 12,658 ought to have been allowed in its entirety. 31. Perusal of the record shows that along with list at Exh. 34 a certificate of Tilak & Co., Pune dated 14.6.1987 was produced by the claimant showing that the claimants paid sum of Rs. 1,207 towards rent of using a special cot (Fowler type). It is stated that the said cot was used from 7.7.1983 and was returned on 19.2.1987. There was no reason to deny the said claim. There are receipts produced by the claimants issued by one Suresh Kumar Sharma of Khadki, Pune showing that sum of Rs. 1,400 was paid to him for manufacturing a special chair and commode for the deceased. In the deposition of the appellant No. 1 he has referred to the said expenditure. There was no reason to deny the said claim. There are receipts produced by the claimants issued by one Suresh Kumar Sharma of Khadki, Pune showing that sum of Rs. 1,400 was paid to him for manufacturing a special chair and commode for the deceased. In the deposition of the appellant No. 1 he has referred to the said expenditure. There is no challenge in the crossexamination to the said expenditure of Rs. 1,400 and Rs. 1,207. The claimant No. 1 claimed expenses of the male attendant at the rate of Rs. 700 per month for 39 months. That amount, i.e., Rs. 27,300 has been already granted by impugned judgment and award. In addition the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 12,658. To that amounts of Rs. 1,207 and Rs. 1,400 will have to be added. Thus, the total compensation payable will be Rs. 42,565. As stated earlier, the claimants can claim compensation only to the extent of loss to estate of the deceased. Hence, they will not get compensation on any other count. 32. The learned Member of the Tribunal has not assigned any reasons for not allowing interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment of the amount. He has awarded interest only from the date of the award in case the award is not complied with within a period of one month. There is no finding recorded that the claimants delayed the hearing of the claim petition. In fact, as stated above, no reasons have been assigned for denying interest. I have perused the roznama of the proceedings. I find that the hearing of the claim petition of the year 1983 was never delayed on account of any fault on the part of the claimants. Therefore, the claimants ought to have been granted interest. Considering the fact that claim is of the year 1985, interest at the rate of 12 per cent ought to have been awarded. However, the Apex Court from the year 2003 onwards has taken judicial notice of the fact that the interest rates have been reduced and in recent decisions the Supreme Court has granted interest on compensation amount only at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum. Considering these aspects, interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum will have to be awarded. 33. Considering these aspects, interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum will have to be awarded. 33. Hence, the appeal must succeed in part and I pass the following order: (i) The impugned judgment and award dated 22.8.1991 is modified and operative part of the award will read thus: The claim petition is allowed. The opponents are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs. 42,565 to the claimants together with interest thereon at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. The claimants are also entitled to proportionate costs of the claim petition from the opponents. (ii) In addition to the proportionate costs of the claim petition, the respondent No. 3 shall also pay compensatory costs of this appeal to the appellant quantified at Rs. 15,000. (iii) Time of three months is granted to comply with the modified award. (iv) The cross-objection of respondent No. 2 is hereby dismissed. (v) Record to be sent back at the earliest.