JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent no. 3, the Insurance Company. 2. Although the matter has come up at the stage of admission, however, since learned counsel for the appellants has confined the claim to the question of award of interest on the amount of compensation the dispute is thus confined to the appellants and the respondent no. 3, the Insurance Company, and, accordingly, with the consent of learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent no. 3, the matter is being disposed of at this stage itself. 3. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and award dated 21.1.2006 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC-IV, Patna, acting as the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, in Claim Case No. 94 of 1993 by which he has awarded Rs. 8,31,560/- to the claimants and further ordered that in case the compensation amount is not paid within one month from the production of receipt of the copy of award the claimants shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the compensation awarded till its realization. 4. The facts of the case are not in dispute and not relevant to the decision on the sole point that has been raised by learned counsel for the appellants. 5. It is submitted that although Section 171 of the M.V. Act provides that where any Claims Tribunal allows a claim for compensation made under this Act, such 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, yet the learned Tribunal did not at all advert to the said aspect of the matter and without assigning any reason has not awarded any interest from the date of filing the claim till the date of the award. It is submitted by learned counsel that as a matter of practice in each and every case the interest is being awarded from the date of filing of claim petition and the same is only refused if sufficient reasons are assigned for not granting the interest from the said date or even for granting it from a date subsequent to the filing of claim. Learned counsel contends that no such reason or application of mind to that aspect of the matter is to be found in the order of the court and thus the same needs to be modified to the extent of allowing the claim of interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim. 6. In support of the same learned counsel relies upon a three Judges Bench decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Supe Dei (Smt.) and Others V/s. National Insurance Company Limited and Another : (2009)4 SCC 513 , in paragraphs 11 and 12 of which it has been held as follows: "11. Coming to the question of interest this Court in Daushnuma Begum V/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. observed that 9% is the appropriate rate of interest to be allowed and that rate is being applied in motor accident compensation cases. 12. Therefore, the claimants will be entitled to the compensation applying 17 as the multiplier and interest at the rate of 9% per annum will be paid on the sum so calculated from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. The order of the Tribunal and the judgment of the High Court are modified to the extent as above." 7. It is accordingly submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the claimant-appellants should also be paid interest from the date of filing of the claim, i.e., 22.11.1993, till the date of payment. 8. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants that although a cheque for the amount of the award was deposited before the Tribunal by the Insurance Company but the said cheque could not be realized as the Bank of the claimant-appellants refused to include the names of more than two other claimants in the bank account of appellant no. 1 as there is no provision for opening of a bank account in the names of more than three persons. For the said reason the cheque continued to remain with the Tribunal and ultimately on the deposit of a fresh cheque in the name of appellant no. 1 after the order of this Court on 30.7.2009 the same was received by the appellants and encashed in the Bank account of appellant no. 1. For the said reason the cheque continued to remain with the Tribunal and ultimately on the deposit of a fresh cheque in the name of appellant no. 1 after the order of this Court on 30.7.2009 the same was received by the appellants and encashed in the Bank account of appellant no. 1. It is thus submitted that due to the fault of the Insurance Company the appellants have been put to substantial loss and it should accordingly be directed to be paid after the award also as a deposit of cheque in the name of four claimants was no deposit in the eye of law. 9. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company, on the other hand, has submitted that the appellants are not entitled to payment of any interest and the same has rightly been not allowed by the Tribunal keeping in view the fact that the delay in the disposal of the matter has occurred on account of the lethargic manner in which the claim case was persued before the Tribunal by the claimant-appellants, as a result of which it took more than 12 years to dispose of the said claim case. In support of the same learned counsel points to the certified copy of the order sheets of the case filed by the appellants and states that the delay has occurred mainly because a large number of time petitions praying for adjournment were filed apart from the fact that they were also absent on as many as 18 dates and have further delayed the matter by not producing the witnesses. It is further pointed out that the matter was also referred to the Lok Adalat in the year 1999 and after three years it was sent back to the Tribunal for disposal as no settlement could be arrived at. For all the said reasons learned counsel for respondent no. 3, the Insurance Company submits that the appellants are not entitled to any interest. It is further submitted by learned counsel that the Insurance Company has deposited the cheque within the time granted in the order of the Tribunal but when it was not accepted by the Bank the appellants should have immediately approached the court and got the cheque rectified and for their inaction the Insurance Company cannot be held to be liable. 10. 10. Lastly it is submitted by learned counsel that in any view of the matter the claim of interest if at all allowed for any limited period of time the same ought not to be higher than 6% as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited V/s. Bindu and Others: (2009)3 SCC 705 , paragraph-9 of which is quoted below: "9. Keeping in view the parameters indicated above it would be appropriate to fix the multiplier at 13 and the rate of interest at 6% p.a. MACT shall work out the entitlements on the aforesaid basis." 11. On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances and the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court does find that at least part of the delay in disposal of the claim case by the Tribunal was on account of the adjournments sought by and the absence of the claimant-appellants. However, the claimant-appellant no. 1 is the widow of the deceased victim of the accident and the other four claimants are her three minor sons and one minor daughter and in the said circumstances it can be well imagined that it may not have been possible at all times for the widow claimant having four minor children to have pursued the matter diligently on all the dates. 12. Moreover, so far as the delay casued on account of the matter having gone to the Lok Adalat but no settlement having been arrived at, the same cannot be thrown at the door of the appellants as a settlement can only take place if both the parties are prepared to reach the same and since ultimately the order has gone against the Insurance Company it must take the major part of the blame for non- reaching of the settlement, rather than the claimants. 13. However, the aforesaid does not mean that the appellants are absolved from the responsibility for the delay. It is true that in the case of Supe Dei (supra) the Apex Court has considered 9% as the appropriate interest to be awarded that being the rate applied in motor accident compensation cases; but in Bindus case (supra) another Bench of the Supreme Court has considered the rate of interest at 6% per annum to be appropriate. It is true that in the case of Supe Dei (supra) the Apex Court has considered 9% as the appropriate interest to be awarded that being the rate applied in motor accident compensation cases; but in Bindus case (supra) another Bench of the Supreme Court has considered the rate of interest at 6% per annum to be appropriate. Although Supe Deis case was decided by a three Judges Bench as compared to Bindus case decided by a two Judges Bench, but in both the decisions what should be appropriate rate of interest has not been decided as an issue; interestingly in Supe Deis case it was enhanced from 6% to 9% while the same was reduced from 9% to 6% in Bindus case. 14. In any view of the matter, even if the rate of 9% interest is considered as the appropriate rate in normal circumstances, considering the fact that the appellants are also to some extent responsible for delay in disposal of the claim case, in the facts and circumstances of the case it would be appropriate if interest is awarded at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of making the claim till its realization. Although the Insurance Company cannot really be held liable for the delay after passing of the order of the Tribunal as they had deposited the Cheque within the stipulated time but the issue of Cheque in favour of four persons (although there were five claimants) which normally is not being accepted by the Banks and further on account of the fact that by non- realization of the cheque the amount under it would have been available to the Insurance Company for the purposes of its business, it would be appropriate that it should pay the appellants interest at the rate of 6% per annum for the said period also, that is, till the date of deposit of the subsequent cheque before the Tribunal. 15. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above and it is held that the claimants shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount of the award from the date of filing of the claim till the date when the subsequent cheque was presented in the Tribunal in the name of appellant no. 1. The said amount must be paid within a period of two months from today.