Judgment :- The claimants are on appeal challenging the award dated 21.11.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1461 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.III), Madurai. 2. This appeal is filed on an interesting question of law. It is a case of fatal accident. Claimants filed a claim for compensation on 25.4.2006. The claim was adjudicated and the award was pronounced on 21.11.2008 granting compensation in a sum of Rs.5,21,000/- with interest at 7.5%. At the time of filing the claim, the claimants sought exemption from payment of Court Fee to some extent and that was allowed. At the time of passing the award, the Tribunal passed the following order:- "The petitioners are directed to pay the deficit court fee of Rs.2739/- within 10 days from the date of this order failing which they are not entitled to get interest from the date of petition till the date of deposit." Since the claimants failed to deposit the deficit court fee of Rs.2,739/- in time, the decree was not drafted. The deficit court fee was, however, paid on 30.4.2009 (i.e.) after 160 days from the date of the award. Thereafter, on payment of the deficit court fee, the decree was drafted. Clause 6 of the decree reads as follows:- "6. That the petitioners are directed to pay the deficit court fee of Rs.2739/- within 10 days from the date of this order failing which they are not entitled to get interest from the date of petition till the date of the deposit of the award amount. Deficit court fee not paid in time. Hence they are not entitled to interest from the date of petition till the date of deposit." (emphasis supplied) 3. The claimants filed this appeal challenging the clause 6 of the decree denying the claimants interest from the date of claim petition (i.e.) 25.4.2006 till the date of deposit of the award amount. 4. Heard Mr.K.Murugesan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants and Mr.D.Sivaraman, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent insurance company. 5. The plea of the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants is that as per the Rule 24(3) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1989, the prescribed court fee, which has been exempted, shall be paid before the copy of judgment is obtained. 5. The plea of the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants is that as per the Rule 24(3) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1989, the prescribed court fee, which has been exempted, shall be paid before the copy of judgment is obtained. Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles, Act 1988 dealing with award of interest provides for interest from the date of claim. Therefore, the denial of interest from the date of claim till date of deposit of the award amount is erroneous and contrary to law. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants relied upon the Apex Courts decision rendered in National Insurance Co. Ltd., - vs. - Keshav Bahadur & others reported in 2004(1) TN MAC 184(SC) and this Courts decision rendered in D.Kanchana Devi – vs. - R.D.Mani reported in 2004 ACJ 1844 (rendered by P.SATHASIVAM,J., as he then was). The learned counsel did not canvass any other issue though it was raised in the memorandum of grounds of appeal. 7. Mr.D.Sivaraman, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent on the other hand contended that if there is a delay in payment of deficit court fee, the decree will not be drafted. Therefore, the second respondent insurance company cannot deposit the award amount in full satisfaction, as the date of claim petition will be indicated in the decree and that will be the relevant date for calculation of interest to be deposited. Besides, the cost payable also will be reflected only in the decree and that has also to be paid. Therefore, till the deficit court fee is paid and decree drafted, the second respondent should not be mulcted with interest. 8. In this case, the order of the Tribunal insofar as denying the interest from the date of claim will be erroneous as Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 clearly provides for payment of compensation with simple interest from the date of claim, if interest is granted. The Tribunal in this case exercised its power under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and granted interest. Therefore, the interest that is to be paid will be from the date of claim petition only. The Tribunal in this case exercised its power under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and granted interest. Therefore, the interest that is to be paid will be from the date of claim petition only. Insofar as Rule 24(3) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1989 is concerned, there is no dispute that the claimants have to pay the prescribed fee or the deficit court fee before the copy of the judgement is obtained. 9. The question that arises now for consideration in this case is whether the claimants will be disentitled to any interest due to the delayed payment of deficit court fee and to what period? The answer to this issue is as follows:- (i) After the award is passed and decree made ready there should not be any delay on the part of the person who is liable to pay the compensation. In order to ensure prompt payment, interest is imposed. In this regard it will be useful to refer the Apex Courts decision which emphasize the need to impose interest in order to ensure that the person concerned pays the amount in time. Para 8 of the decision in 2004(1) TN MAC 184(SC) (cited supra) clarifies the position. 8. The inevitable conclusion on the factual backgrounds is that the liability of the appellant insurer is limited to Rs.50,000/-. The residual question is whether there could be any stipulation of penal rate of interest as done by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court. So far as the higher rate of interest stipulation is concerned, it is to be noted that grant of interest under Section 110-CC of the Act (corresponding to Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) (in short the new Act) is discretionary. The purpose for award of interest is to put pressure on the relevant person not to delay in making the payment; and, to compensate the victim or his dependents at least to some extent for such delay as may occur, by way of interest. In determining the quantum of interest awardable under the relevant Section, the Tribunal acting under Section 110 of the Act corresponding to Section 166 of the new Act can derive direct guidance from Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the CPC). In determining the quantum of interest awardable under the relevant Section, the Tribunal acting under Section 110 of the Act corresponding to Section 166 of the new Act can derive direct guidance from Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the CPC). In fact, the provisions require payment of interest in addition to compensation already determined. Even though the expression may is used, a duty is laid on the Tribunal to consider the question of interest separately with due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. The provision is discretionary and is not and cannot be bound by rules." (ii) The award in this case was passed on 21.11.2008. The deficit court fee was paid on 30.4.2008 (i.e.) after the delay of 160 days. It is thereafter that the decree was drafted. The decree indicates the date of claim and the costs (i.e.) payable by the second respondent to the claimants as ordered by the Tribunal. If the deficit court fee had been paid earlier, the decree would have drafted and the second respondent could have paid the award amount as per the provision of the Act. It is only due to the claimants delay in paying the deficit court fee, that the decree could not be drafted earlier. Therefore, the second respondent cannot be mulcted with interest for the delay caused by the claimants in paying the deficit court fee from the date of award. (iii) Since the claimants have in this case delayed the payment of deficit court fee, thereby the drafting of the decree was delayed, the second respondent, who in this case, is liable to compensate cannot be made to pay interest for the period of delay in paying the deficit court fee. This, however, would not disentitle the claimants from getting interest from the date of claim petition and it will be contrary to Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. To that extent the order of the Tribunal is bad. (iv) There is one other defect in the decree which says that the claimants will not be entitled interest from the date of petition till date of deposit of award amount. This portion of the decree cannot be justified. The award does not specify that the interest is denied till the date of deposit of the award amount. (iv) There is one other defect in the decree which says that the claimants will not be entitled interest from the date of petition till date of deposit of award amount. This portion of the decree cannot be justified. The award does not specify that the interest is denied till the date of deposit of the award amount. Theses words have been added in the decree and that is bad. All that the Tribunal can state in this case is that the claimants will not be entitled to the payment of interest from the date of decree till payment of deficit court fee, as the delay is on account of the claimants. Once the deficit court fee has been paid and the decree has been drafted and issued, the liability to pay the award amount with interest and cost will thereafter fall on the second respondent, the person liable. The decree insofar as it denies interest from the date of petition till date of deposit of award amount is also bad and is, therefore, set aside. (v) The claimants, on the other hand, will not be entitled to interest from the date of decree (i.e.) 21.11.2008 till date of payment of deficit court fee which was admittedly paid on 30.4.2009. 10. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed as follows:- (i) In Para 12 of the award of the Tribunal the following sentence stands deleted:- "The petitioners are directed to pay the deficit court fee of Rs.2739/- within 10 days from the date of this order failing which they are not entitled to get interest from the date of petition till the date of deposit." (ii) In the above place the following sentence shall be substituted:- "The petitioners are directed to pay the deficit court fee of Rs.2739/- within 10 days from the date of this order failing which they are not entitled to get interest from the date of award till the date of deposit of deficit court fee." (iii) Clause 6 of the Tribunals decree is deleted. (iv) The Tribunals decree to be suitably amended (v) The award of the Tribunal in other respects stands confirmed. (vi) There will be no order as to costs.