JUDGMENT VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. : 1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 30.8.2008 which has decreed the suit for recovery of money filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff for insurance moneys as also other losses suffered by the respondent No.1/plaintiff because the insurance company failed to pay the amounts which were due under the subject insurance policy. I may state that there is only a limited issue to be decided in this appeal as to whether the interest has to be granted @ 12% per annum simple or compounded. This is stated in the order of admission dated 22.9.2011 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. 2. On the aspect of interest, the trial Court has stated in para 30 of the impugned judgment that plaintiff is awarded interest @ 12% per annum with quarterly rests from 1.1.1982. Though it is not too clear that the interest is payable till payment. 3. A reference to the impugned judgment shows that there is no reasoning at all given for granting interest with quarterly rests except a cryptic one line sentence that interest be granted at the rate of 12% per annum with quarterly rests from 1.1.1982. 4. The Supreme Court in the recent judgments reported as Rajendra Construction Co. v. Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority and others, 2005 (6) SCC 678 , McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and others, 2006 (11) SCC 181 , Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Indag Rubber Ltd., (2006) 7 SCC 700 , Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. G. Harischandra, 2007 (2) SCC 720 & State of Rajasthan Vs. Ferro Concrete Construction Pvt. Ltd (2009) 3 Arb. LR 140 (SC) has held that in the changed economic scenario where there has been a fall in the rates of interest, Courts must not grant high rates of interest moreso when the interest is granted for a long period of time especially because of long pendency of litigation. In the present case, interest @ 12% per annum with quarterly rests is granted for a period of as many as 26 years i.e. w.e.f. 1982 till passing of the judgment in 2008 and in fact till the appellant pays under the impugned judgment and decree. 5. In the present case, interest @ 12% per annum with quarterly rests is granted for a period of as many as 26 years i.e. w.e.f. 1982 till passing of the judgment in 2008 and in fact till the appellant pays under the impugned judgment and decree. 5. Considering the fact that Supreme Court has granted interest varying between 6% to 9% per annum simple, I do not find that rate of interest @ 12% per annum is in any manner less for compensating the respondent No.1/plaintiff. Since the rate of interest is already high @ 12% per annum, I do not find any necessity that to such high rate of interest, the respondent No.1/plaintiff be granted compounded interest with quarterly rests. This is in accord with ratio of the judgments of the Supreme Court referred to above. 6. During the course of arguments, I repeatedly put queries to the counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff as to whether any documents have been filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff to show that in fact interest with quarterly rests has actually been paid under any decree passed by the Court to the bankers of respondent No.1/plaintiff, however, except relying upon the documents being the plaint and the statement of account of the bank, no documents were filed in the trial Court to show that interest in fact has been actually paid by the respondent No.1/plaintiff to its bank at quarterly rests. 7. In view of the above, appeal is accepted by setting aside that portion of the impugned judgment dated 30.8.2008 which granted interest @ 12% per annum with quarterly rests. The interest which will be payable will be @ 12% per annum simple qua all the defendants. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared. Trial Court record be sent back.