JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. After hearing Mr. P. Gautam, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company and Mr. H.K. Bhowmik, the learned counsel for the claimant-respondents and Mr. D.C. Nath, the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 at some length, I am of the view that the limited interference of this Court with respect to the penal interest of 12% per annum awarded by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala in T.S. (MAC) No.360 of 2010, is called for. 2. However, the facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be briefly noted before proceeding further. It is the case of the claimant that on 07.7.2010 at about 8-45 hours, the deceased (Subhash Biswas) was proceeding towards Jirania Petrol Pump from his house by riding a bicycle and at about 9 AM when he was about to reach West Market, Jirania along the Assam-Agartala Road, one Mini Bus bearing registration No.TR-02-1275 coming from the opposite direction driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against his bicycle, which caused grievous injuries to him, and succumbed to his injuries on the same day. The deceased was 21 years old at the time of his death, and was stated to have earned Rs.6,000/- per month as a mason at the time of accident. On his death, his wife and parents, claiming to be fully dependent on him for their sustenance, filed the claim petition. The couple apparently did not have any issue. 3. The claim petition was opposed by the owner of the vehicle (respondent No.4) as well as the Insurance Company by filing their respective written statements. After hearing both the parties, the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment awarding a sum of Rs.5,71,600/- to the claimant-respondents carrying interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition, failing which, a penal interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realization was directed to be paid. It was also ordered therein that the awarded amount should be divided in equal share among the claimant-respondents except the award of Rs.5,000/- by way of consortium which was to be paid to the claimant-respondent No.1. Aggrieved by this, the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. 4. Mr. It was also ordered therein that the awarded amount should be divided in equal share among the claimant-respondents except the award of Rs.5,000/- by way of consortium which was to be paid to the claimant-respondent No.1. Aggrieved by this, the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. 4. Mr. P. Gautam, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has made twofold contention, namely, (i) the addition of 30% to the compensation for future prospect to his income cannot be made by the Tribunal inasmuch as the decision upon which this award was made has now been placed before the larger Bench of the Apex Court and is yet to be decided and as such, the earlier decision awarding 30% for future prospect is no longer a good law; and (ii) the Tribunal has committed illegality in awarding a penal interest of 12% per annum on the failure of the appellant to satisfy the award in time. 5. In so far as addition to be made to the actual income of the deceased towards his future prospect is concerned, the submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is to be noted only to be summarily rejected inasmuch as the placing of the decision in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 421 for reconsideration before the larger Bench of the Apex Court does not preclude this Court from applying the Santosh Devi case to this case when Santosh Devi has not been set aside by the larger Bench. As for the penal interest, there is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that such order is patently illegal, and Tribunal has no jurisdiction to impose such penal interest. To this extent, the impugned judgment calls for the interference of this Court. 6. For what has been stated in the foregoing, this appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment directing the payment of penal interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition in the event of the appellant failing to deposit the compensation amount within 2(two) months is hereby set aside. The impugned judgment is, therefore, modified only to the extent and in the manner indicated above. 7. It is stated at the Bar that 50% of the compensation with the interest accrued thereon has been deposited with the Registry of this Court. The impugned judgment is, therefore, modified only to the extent and in the manner indicated above. 7. It is stated at the Bar that 50% of the compensation with the interest accrued thereon has been deposited with the Registry of this Court. If that is so, the Registry will release the same to the claimant-respondents after fulfilling the usual conditions without further reference to this Court. 8. The appeal is disposed of. Transmit the L.C. records forthwith.