JUDGMENT : R.P. Dholaria, J. These three appeals arose out of judgment and order passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Ahmedabad City, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 886 of 2002 on 6.3.2007. 2. First Appeal No. 5301 of 2007 has been preferred by the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Pravinbhai Babubhai Patel for enhancement of compensation whereas First Appeal No. 3444 of 2007 has been filed by The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., challenging the issue with regard to negligence, involvement as well as amount of compensation so far awarded by the Tribunal. First Appeal No. 4954 of 2007 has been preferred by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., challenging the liability fastened on it so far as the vehicle insured with it. 3. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the accident took place on 15.9.2002 at about 6.00 p.m. on Ahmedabad-Anand National Highway No. 8, near Dabhan Crossroads in the vicinity of Tundel, village Patia at Nadiad, Anand. On the fateful day, petitioner No. 1 along with her husband Pravinbhai Babubhai Patel was returning from the residence of Lilaben Patel, sister of Pravinbhai Patel, at Kanjaria village, Anand Taluka to Ahmedabad by Maruti-800 car bearing registration No. GJ-1-HH-6914 and when they were passing through Dabhan Crossroads on National Highway No. 8, near canal, near Tundel, village Patia, one Eicher tempo bearing registration No. GJ-7Y-5674 which was coming from the backside of the Maruti car dashed the Maruti car from behind and as a result of which, Maruti car dashed one Tata 407 Tempo bearing registration No. GJ-6U-7439 which was coming from the opposite direction. Due to the aforesaid accident, petitioner No. 1 Hansaben sustained minor injuries and her husband Pravinbhai Babubhai Patel who was driving the said Maruti car sustained serious bodily injuries. They were taken to Nadiad Civil Hospital and thereafter Pravinbhai Babubhai Patel was shifted to Ahmedabad Civil Hospital as he has sustained serious injuries on shoulder and thigh. During treatment, Pravinbhai Patel succumbed to the injuries on fifth day of the accident at Ahmedabad. 4. Upon happening of the aforesaid incident, a complaint was lodged by Pyaresaheb Nurkhan, driver of Tata 407 Tempo having registration No. GJ-6U-7439, before Vaso Police Station narrating the accident. During treatment, Pravinbhai Patel succumbed to the injuries on fifth day of the accident at Ahmedabad. 4. Upon happening of the aforesaid incident, a complaint was lodged by Pyaresaheb Nurkhan, driver of Tata 407 Tempo having registration No. GJ-6U-7439, before Vaso Police Station narrating the accident. Thereafter, police has drawn panchnama of the scene of accident on the following day and thereafter recorded the statement of witnesses and ultimately, after completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against Ramsingbhai Kanjibhai Rajput, opponent No. 1 – driver of Eicher Tempo No. GJ-7Y-5674. 5. Thereafter, widow Hansaben Pravinbhai Patel and minor son Chirag Pravinbhai Patel filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 60 lakh. After conclusion of hearing and trial, the Tribunal was pleased to hold 20% contributory negligence on the part of deceased Pravinbhai Babubhai Patel himself, and further pleased to hold 50% contributory negligence on the part of opponent Nos. 1 to 3, namely, driver, owner and insurer of Eicher Tempo No. GJ-7Y-5674 and 30% contributory negligence on the part of opponent No. 4 – driver of vehicle No. GJ-6U-7439. Accordingly, the Tribunal was pleased to award total compensation of Rs. 39,75,219/-. 6. We have heard learned advocate Mr. K.K. Nair appearing for The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, learned advocate for Mr. Sandip C. Shah appearing for New India Assurance Company Ltd and learned advocate Mr. Ravindra Shah appearing for the claimants. We have gone through the record and proceedings as well as the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. As learned advocates for the Insurance Companies have raised contention with regard to negligence and apportionment of contributory liability upon the drivers of the vehicles involved in the accident, we have reappreciated the evidence available on the record, oral and documentary evidence which were tendered by learned advocates at the time of hearing, FIR, panchnama, police statement as well as chargesheet produced during the course of trial. Learned advocate appearing for The Oriental Insurance Company Limited has submitted that driver of vehicle Eicher Tempo No. GJ-7Y-5674 has been wrongly roped in as immediately after the incident, driver of another vehicle bearing registration No. GJ-6U-7439 gave FIR in which he had not made any details with regard to involvement of Eicher Tempo bearing registration No. GJ-7Y-5674 in the accident. Further he has contended that the involvement of Eicher Tempo bearing registration No. GJ-7Y-5674 was made by the further statement of the complainant on the following day and in the statement of petitioner No. 1 Hansaben Pravinbhai Patel which was recorded by the police on 18.9.2002 and that created a doubt. He has therefore prayed that the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is absolved of the liability of making the payment. 7. Similarly, learned advocate Mr. Sandip Shah appearing for New India Assurance Company has advanced his contention that the driver of Maruti Fronti came from the opposite direction with excessive speed and while overtaking another vehicle wrongly, he dashed the his vehicle i.e. Tata 407 Tempo bearing registration No. GJ-6U-7439. He therefore argued that negligence on the part of driver of vehicle Tata 407 Tempo No. GJ-6U-7439 could not have been fixed as such. 8. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contentions, we have gone through the record and proceedings in the case. It clearly establishes that no sooner the accident took place than one Pyaresaheb Nurkhan has lodged FIR before the police on 15.9.2002 narrating the accident as under:- “That my name is Pyaresaheb Nurkhan, aged 48, occupation Driver, residing at Memon Colony, Chistia Apartment, Block No. 76, Ajwa Road, near Water Tank, Vadodara. On asking me personally, I declare that I lodge true complaint. That I reside at the above stated address with my family for last 4 years. I am working as driver of vehicle Tata 407 Tempo No. 407, GU-6U-7439 which is owned by Chhayaben Satishkumar Patni. I am getting monthly salary of Rs. 1500/- My Driving Licence No. 106912 is issued by RTO, Vadodara, Badge No. 13052 which is renewed upto 15.11.2003. My son Liyaqathussen is working with me as conductor since last one month. Today in the morning, after loading speakers from Indian Sounds, Vadodara, I and my son Liyaqathussen had gone to Patel Brothers, Mehsana. After unloading the goods, they were returning to Vadodara with empty vehicle. After passing Dabhan on National Highway No. 8, when we reached near Moti Naher, at about 6.00 in the evening, one Maruti Car Fronty came in high speed and while overtaking another vehicle collided with the front side bumper of my vehicle and therefore I stopped my vehicle. In the said Maruti Car Fronty, there was a driver and a woman. In the said Maruti Car Fronty, there was a driver and a woman. The driver sustained severe injuries on his legs and he was taken out of the car and rushed to the hospital in a police ambulance. I had seen the number of Maruti Car Fronty which was bearing registration No. GJ-1-HH-6914. Thus, as the driver of the said Maruti Car Fronty was driving his car in high speed rashly and negligently and while overtaking another vehicle collided with my vehicle causing injuries to his both legs and thereby committed the offence, so I complain to initiate investigation proceedings against him in accordance with law. My evidence is that those disclosed in the investigation. The facts of my complaint are true.” 9. On the next day, the concerned Investigating Officer has also drawn panchnama of the scene of accident wherein the place of incident has been shown by the complainant Pyaresaheb Nurkhan and in presence of panchas the accident has been narrated in the panchnama. The place of accident is on National Highway No. 8, Nadiad Taluka, Tundel village (sim) on eastern road. At that place one Tata 407 Tempo No. GJ-6U-7439 was lying facing direction towards Vadodara. It was found on eastern side of the road near the border. The said tempo sustained damages on driver side wheel, mudguard metal sheet and the front bumper had dent inside and the bonnet sheet has dent inside. Near the said tempo a Maruti Fronty was found facing direction towards Ahmedabad. It also sustained damages on the front wheel of driver’s side, bumper have dent inside and the head light was broken, bonnet sheet is bent and the show grill was also dent and pressed inside the engine. The front glass and driver side door and the glass of the door were broken and separated and the big rear side glass was broken and there was a dent at the back of vacant side. As the front glass of Maruti Fronty was broken, rubber frame was separated. Near the Maruti Fronti and tempo, broken glass pieces were littered on the eastern side of the road. 10. As the front glass of Maruti Fronty was broken, rubber frame was separated. Near the Maruti Fronti and tempo, broken glass pieces were littered on the eastern side of the road. 10. It is also revealing that on the following day, further statement of Pyaresaheb Nurkhan was recorded and he has narrated that in the complaint on the previous day, he stated that Maruti 800 Car GJ-1-HH-6914 which collided with his four wheeler was hit from behind by Eicher Tempo No. GJ-7Y-5674 and due to the negligence on the part of driver of Eicher Tempo, the accident took place. He has further described that he also seen the number of aforesaid Eicher Tempo which was involved in the accident being GJ-7Y-5674. He has further stated that the aforesaid Eicher Tempo dashed Maruti Car Fronty from behind. At that time, he also enquired name of the driver of Eicher Tempo and he himself has told that his name is Ramsingh Rajput. He further narrated that he is a resident of Jamalpur. He has also explained that his matador was collided with Maruti Fronty, he lodged complaint against the driver of Maruti Fronty on the previous day and due to fear, he had forgotten to give description of another vehicle as well as details of vehicle while lodging complaint. In fact, he has stated that the accident happened on account of the mistake of the driver of Eicher Tempo. 11. Statement of the claimant Hansaben was recorded by the police on 18.9.2002 wherein she has described the accident. English translation of statement of Hansaben is reproduced as under:- “My name is Hansaben, widow of Pravinbhai Babubhai Patel, aged 47, occupation household work, resident of CAnkit Apartment, near Sahajanand College, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad. On asking me personally, I state that I reside at the above stated address with my husband and children. My husband is working as Development Officer in New India Insurance Company, Mill Office Colony. I have three children, two are daughters and one son. Eldest daughter’s name is Nitaben and younger daughter’s name is Nandita. Both the daughters were married at Ahmedabad. Youngest son’s name is Chirage who is pursuing computer study. Maruti Fronty Car is in the name of my husband. Its number is GJ-1-HH-6914. My husband used the car for going to and coming from his service. Eldest daughter’s name is Nitaben and younger daughter’s name is Nandita. Both the daughters were married at Ahmedabad. Youngest son’s name is Chirage who is pursuing computer study. Maruti Fronty Car is in the name of my husband. Its number is GJ-1-HH-6914. My husband used the car for going to and coming from his service. On 15.9.2002 I and my husband, both, had gone in our Maruti Fronty Car GJ-1-HH-6914 to the house of my elder sister Lilaben Kantibhai Patel at village Kanjari. We had left Ahmedabad at 12.00 noon for Kanjari. At 5.30 p.m. we returned to Ahmedabad from Kanjari. We were proceeding on National Highway No. 8 and when we reached near Nadiad, while trying to overtake one truck which was going ahead of our vehicle, Eicher Tempo which was behind our vehicle, dashed our Maruti Fronty as a result of which our vehicle collided with Matador 407 coming from the opposite direction. Due to the collision my husband suffered serious injuries on right hand shoulder and on the upper portion of right leg (Thappa). I and my husband were taken out by other vehicle drivers . The number of matador which dashed to our vehicle is GJ-7Y-5674 and the driver has stated his name as Ramsinh Rajput, a resident of Jamalpur, Ahmedabad. At that time, my husband was seriously injured. On coming of police, we both were taken to Nadiad Civil Hospital in ambulance for treatment and from there as it was advised to take to Ahmedabad for further treatment, left for Ahmedabad in ambulance. I telephoned my son-in-law Nimeshbhai and told him that our car met with an accident and we are coming to Ahmedabad in ambulance and therefore, a good Orthopaedic Surgeon may be searched and found out so that we may directly get admitted to the hospital. Accordingly, my husband was admitted in the hospital of Dr. Shri Yogesh Parikh at Maninagar and my husband is now under treatment as indoor patient and as operation was performed on his right leg and in unconscious condition, he is not able to give statement. Thus, on 15.9.2002 in the evening at 6.00 o’clock, driver of Eicher Tempo No. GJ-7Y-5674 giving dash from behind to the Fronty, this incident occurred. At present my husband is under treatment and as on my right hand only minor injury was caused, no treatment was taken. Thus, on 15.9.2002 in the evening at 6.00 o’clock, driver of Eicher Tempo No. GJ-7Y-5674 giving dash from behind to the Fronty, this incident occurred. At present my husband is under treatment and as on my right hand only minor injury was caused, no treatment was taken. The said facts are correct.” 12. Further during the course of trial, the claimants have submitted documentary evidences after seeking permission from the Tribunal. At that time, learned advocates appearing on behalf of New India Assurance Company Ltd. as well as the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., have admitted exhibition as well as reading of the documentary evidence in the nature of FIR, further statement of Pyaresaheb Nurkhan, panchnama of scene of incident, police statement of claimant Hansaben as well as chargesheet filed after conclusion of investigation naming Ramsingh Rajput, driver of Eicher Tempo, as accused. 13. Before the Tribunal, the driver, owners as well as Insurance Companies of both the vehicles were very much on the record but due to the fact that service could not be effected to opponent No. 1, driver of Eicher Tempo, his name was deleted. Afterwards, the owners and Insurance Companies of both the vehicles were served with notice and they were represented by learned advocates before the Tribunal. None of the drivers or owners of the vehicles have made any written statement. Insurance Companies of the aforesaid both vehicles have filed written statement, inter alia, taking general contention therein which are at Exhs. 36 and 42. The contentions are in general nature. No specific plea was taken in the aforesaid written statement. Learned advocates for the Insurance Companies have cross-examined the claimant Hansaben at Exh. 51. In the examination-in-chief she has reiterated whatever description given regarding the accident, involvement of both the aforesaid vehicles. Her version is similar to that she gave in the police statement. She has been cross-examined by learned advocate for the Oriental Insurance Company Limited opponent No. 3 wherein in the cross-examination the Insurance Company has established that right side front portion of Eicher Tempo has hit left side rear portion of Maruti Fronty. She has admitted that she did not see the vehicle which was coming from the opposite direction which she came to know afterwards. She has not admitted any suggestion which was put forward by learned advocate for the Insurance Company that the incident occurred while overtaking Eicher Tempo. She has admitted that she did not see the vehicle which was coming from the opposite direction which she came to know afterwards. She has not admitted any suggestion which was put forward by learned advocate for the Insurance Company that the incident occurred while overtaking Eicher Tempo. She has admitted that her police statement was recorded. She has shown her ignorance regarding the outcome of criminal case in her cross-examination. 14. Similarly, learned advocate for another Insurance Company, namely, New India Assurance Company Limited has also cross-examined the claimant on this point wherein she has admitted that while her husband was driving Maruti Fronty it was hit by another vehicle which was coming behind in the result Maruti Car collided with the vehicle which was coming from the opposite direction. She has also admitted that the incident of collision with the vehicles of New India Assurance Company Limited took place after the driver of Maruti Car overtook another vehicle. She has admitted that her husband sustained serious injuries. Therefore, he was taken to Nadiad Civil Hospital and thereafter to Ahmedabad hospital. Therefore, police recorded her statement after two days. She has also admitted in the cross-examination that Eicher Tempo dashed Maruti Fronty from the rear, the Maruti Fronty dashed to one matador 407 coming from the opposite direction. She has also admitted that right front portion of vehicle coming from backside dashed to the left rear portion of Maruti Car and in the result front right corner of the Maruti Car dashed to the vehicle coming from the opposite direction. 15. The aforesaid evidence was produced before the Tribunal in order to prove the negligence on the part of the vehicles involved in the accident. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record as well as the submissions made in the light of the evidence on record, recorded its finding to the effect that deceased Pravinbhai, opponent No. 1 driver of Eicher Tempo GJ-7Y-5674 and opponent No. 4 driver of Tata 407 Tempo No. GJ-6U-7439 are liable for the occurrence of the accident to the extent of 20%, 50% and 30% respectively. 16. Before us, learned advocate Mr. 16. Before us, learned advocate Mr. K.K. Nair appearing for the Oriental Insurance Company Limited has argued that the involvement of vehicle insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited was not initially revealed and it was revealed in the further statement of the complainant Pyaresaheb Nurkhan and thereafter, after about 3 days, police statement of claimant Hansaben was recorded and therefore it creates serous doubt regarding involvement of the vehicle in the accident. On this point, we are very much conscious that this matter is in the nature of appeal. Before the Tribunal, trial was over. It is very unfortunate on the part of the Oriental Insurance Company that neither in the written statement nor even while recording evidence of the eye witnesses, such contention was taken. On the contrary, it is revealing from the record available before us that while adducing documentary evidence, learned advocate who was engaged by the Oriental Insurance Company, himself has admitted the aforesaid documents which were not only disclosing that the vehicle insured with the Oriental Insurance Company is involved in the accident but it was also indicating that after conclusion of entire investigation, even chargesheet came to be filed against the driver of The Oriental Insurance Company Limited. 17. In the aforesaid factual position as emerging out from the record and proceedings, it is not permissible as per the provisions of law to raise such contention for the first time before this Court by learned advocate for the Oriental Insurance Company Limited that the aforesaid vehicle insured with it is not involved in the accident and the liability ought not have been fastened on the Oriental Insurance Company so far as the vehicle insured with it is concerned for the simple reason that such contention was never raised before the Tribunal and none of the parties have availed any opportunity of leading or adducing any evidence so far as the present contention raised before us is concerned. In absence of making such exercise, this contention cannot be raised at belated stage before this Court. Therefore, the arguments advanced by learned advocate Mr. K.K. Nair for the Oriental Insurance Company Limited so far as non-involvement of vehicle is concerned, cannot be accepted. 18. In absence of making such exercise, this contention cannot be raised at belated stage before this Court. Therefore, the arguments advanced by learned advocate Mr. K.K. Nair for the Oriental Insurance Company Limited so far as non-involvement of vehicle is concerned, cannot be accepted. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, now the question comes for consideration is with regard to apportionment of contributory liability so far as the vehicles involved in the present accident is concerned. Indisputably, the accident occurred at Anand-Ahmedabad National Highway No. 8, near Dabhan Crossroads in the vicinity of Tundel, village Patia, wherein road runs North to South. Indisputably, deceased driver of Maruti Fronty was proceeding towards Ahmedabad. Therefore, while overtaking one vehicle, his car was hit from backside by the driver of Eicher Tempo GJ-7Y- 5674 which resulted Maruti Fronty colliding with another vehicle Tata 407 Tempo GJ-6U-7439 which was coming from the opposite direction from Ahmedabad side. In our view, the evidence on record clearly indicates that while overtaking another vehicle, driver of vehicle insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited hit Maruti Fronty from behind in the result Maruti Car collided with the vehicle coming from the opposite direction. Due to the accident, driver of Maruti Car sustained fatal injuries and ultimately, he succumbed to the injuries. In this view of the matter, when the victim of accident was driver of one of the vehicles, the question arose for our consideration is contribution of the drivers of the vehicles to the accident and how much contribution to the happening of the accident is made by two other drivers of the vehicles which are involved in the accident. 19. We have thoughtfully considered the findings recorded by the Tribunal in light of the evidence available on the record. We have also independently reassessed the documentary evidence in the nature of FIR, panchnama, panchnama of scene of accident, police statement of claimant Hansaben and further statement of Pyaresaheb and chargesheet filed after completion of investigation against driver of the Oriental Insurance Company Limited. Indisputably, the accident was occurred during the day time. Indisputably, the accident occurred on National Highway No. 8 having ample width for about 24 ft. Indisputably, the accident was occurred during the day time. Indisputably, the accident occurred on National Highway No. 8 having ample width for about 24 ft. As the deceased was driving small vehicle as compared to other two vehicles involved in the accident and while Maruti Car was overtaking another vehicle, it was hit from behind by the vehicle insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited which resulted Maruti Car colliding with another vehicle in the nature of head on collision. All these go to show negligence on the part of drivers of all the three vehicles involved in the accident. 20. In the aforesaid factual scenario whenever drivers of all the three vehicles are held to be negligent in driving their respective vehicles, how much contribution they have made in occurring the accident is required to be assessed in light of the evidence on record. The Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion to hold that deceased Pravinbahi Babubhai Patel is liable to the extent of 20%, driver of the vehicle No. GJ-7Y-5674 insured with the Oriental Insurance Company is liable to the extent of 50% as the said vehicle hit Maruti Car from behind is indicative of more negligence. Similarly, the vehicle which was coming from opposite direction was collided with Maruti Car in the nature of head on collision which is clear indicative of negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle and therefore his negligence has been rightly assessed to the extent of 30% by the Tribunal. 21. Since the negligence on the part of deceased Pravinbhai Patel has been held at 20% , the claimants are not entitled to 20% amount of the compensation. Balance 80% of the amount of compensation shall be payable by the drivers and Insurance Companies of aforesaid both the vehicles in the ratio of 50% and 30%. 22. Now coming to the point of quantum, documentary evidence in the nature of income-tax return discloses date of birth of deceased to be 11.7.1953 and the date of accident is 15.9.2002. Therefore, the age of deceased on the date of accident is proved to be 48 years. 22. Now coming to the point of quantum, documentary evidence in the nature of income-tax return discloses date of birth of deceased to be 11.7.1953 and the date of accident is 15.9.2002. Therefore, the age of deceased on the date of accident is proved to be 48 years. So far as income and occupation of deceased Pravinbhai Patel is concerned, the claimants have produced documentary evidence disclosing that the deceased was serving as Development Officer with New India Assurance Company Limited and was filing incometax returns which are very much on record at exh. 64. The income and tax payable shown in the income-tax return are as under: Asst. Year Accounting year Income stated Tax payable 2000-2001 1999-2000 2,31,260 32,316 2001-2002 2000-2001 4,56,962 1,11,253 2002-2003 2001-2002 1,40,898 1,204 8,29,120 1,44,773 23. Thus, as per the income-tax returns for three assessment years, total income comes to Rs. 8,29,120/-. Out of that, after deducting amount of income-tax payable of Rs. 1,44,773/-, balance amount comes to Rs. 6,84,347/-. Average of three years income of Rs. 6,84,347/- comes to Rs. 2,28,116/-. As the deceased falls within the age group of 40 years to 50 years as per the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , 30% rise of the aforesaid income of Rs. 2,28,116/- i.e. Rs. 68,434/- is required to be added for arriving at the prospective income then it would come to Rs. 2,96,550/-. Out of that, one third amount i.e. Rs. 98,850/- the deceased would have spent towards his personal expenses which is to be deducted from the said prospective income. Then the balance amount would come to Rs. 1,97,700/- which will be the average annual income of the deceased. Since the deceased falls in the age group between 45 years and 50 years multiplier of 13 is applicable. Thus, prospective loss of Rs. 1,97,700/- is multiplied by 13, the total future economic loss caused to the claimants would come to Rs. 25,70,100/-. Over and above the aforesaid amount, the claimants are entitled to receive Rs. 1 lakh for loss of consortium and expectancy of life and Rs. 25,000/- under the head funeral expenses in light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors. 25,70,100/-. Over and above the aforesaid amount, the claimants are entitled to receive Rs. 1 lakh for loss of consortium and expectancy of life and Rs. 25,000/- under the head funeral expenses in light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors. reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54 . Thus, the total amount payable to the claimants would come to Rs. 26,95,100/-. However, from that awarded amount, 20% is required to be slashed down for the negligence of the deceased and from the rest of the amount, 50% of the awarded amount is required to be paid by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. owner and Insurer of Eicher Tempo No. GJ-7Y-5674 and 30% of the awarded amount is required to be paid by respondent Nos. 3 to 6 i.e. owner, driver and insurer of Tata 407 Tempo No. GJ-6U-7439 jointly and severally. 24. Now on the point of interest, in absence of any statutorily fixed rate of interest, generally, the Courts, and Tribunals are fixing the rate of interest at the prevailing bank rate of interest of the year of accident. Learned advocate for the claimants has argued that the interest fixed at the rate of 6% is on the lower side. The accident happened in the year 2002 when the rate of interest was higher i.e. more than 12%. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that interest rate is required to be fixed at 9% per annum instead of 6% per annum. 25. In light of the above observations, the award passed by the Tribunal on 6.3.2007 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 886 of 2002 is modified to the aforesaid extent with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the petition till realization with proportionate cost. The Tribunal is directed to pass necessary orders for disbursement of the compensation to the claimants accordingly at its own discretion and thereafter, excess amount, if any, is ordered to be refunded to the respective Insurance Companies with accrued interest on receipt of a copy of the judgment. 26. All the appeals stand disposed of accordingly to the aforesaid extent only.