ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. On 28.09.2015, this Court issued notice for final disposal of the matter. The Respondents are served. None appeared for Respondent No.1. Shri D.N.Kukday, the learned counsel appears for respondent No.2 and Shri R.D.Bhuibhar, the learned counsel appears for respondent No.3. In view of the fact that the notice for final disposal of the matter was issued, it is not necessary to issue fresh notice to the Respondent No. 1 who is not present before this Court. Hence, Admit. The learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 waives service of notice. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. In M.A.C.P. No. 142 of 2008, decided on 11.12.2012, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Buldhana, has held that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- inclusive of the amount of Rs.50,000/- towards interim compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short "the M.V. Act") along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realisation. The Tribunal has further held that the respondent No. 2 Reliance General Insurance Company shall pay the compensation to the claimants and shall be entitled to recover it later on from the owner of the vehicle. The claimants are before this Court to claim further enhancement of compensation to Rs.8,49,000/- on the basis of such findings recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment. 3. Shri Kukday, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 Reliance General Insurance Company, has urged that the findings recorded by the Tribunal makes it clear that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle which is TATA Tipper bearing registration No. CG-04-ZC-8638 was insured with two different Insurance Companies, one is the respondent No. 2 Reliance General Insurance Company and another is the respondent No. 3 – I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. The Tribunal, according to him, ought to have, therefore, apportioned the payment of compensation proportionately between the two Insurance Companies. He further urges that there was no occasion for the Tribunal to discharge the respondent No. 3 – I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd, from its liability to pay the compensation. He further urges that there was no occasion for the Tribunal to discharge the respondent No. 3 – I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd, from its liability to pay the compensation. He further submits that if the compensation is to be enhanced, the interest on the enhanced amount shall be from the date of the award passed by the Tribunal and not from the date of filing of the petition. Relying upon several decisions of the Apex Court and of this High Court, it is urged that before release of the amount to the claimants, this Court should direct the owner of the offending vehicle to furnish security for the amount of the claim. 4. The points for determination are as under - 1. Whether the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation from Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.8,49,000/- on the basis of the findings recorded by the Tribunal? 2. Whether this Court should take into consideration the contentions raised by learned counsel Shri Kukday on behalf of Respondent No. 2 – Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd? 5. Undisputedly, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has held that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.8,49,000/- but, has further held that the claimants have restricted their claim in the claim petition to Rs.5,00,000/- and hence, the claimants cannot be granted the compensation more than Rs.5,00,000/-. 6. In para (B) of the claim petition filed before the Tribunal, the averments are made as under- (B) It is submitted that the deceased could have easily earned more than 1 crore and he could have easily lived up to 80 years. The claimants are unable to make expenses for the huge amount and so for time being, they restricts his claim to rupees 5 lakhs u/s 166 of M.V.Act. But they undertakes, to pay the difference of Court fees, if the Hon'ble Tribunal grants enhanced compensation than claimed. It is not disputed that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Nagappa vrs. Gurdayal Singh, reported in (2003) 2 SCC 274 , there would be no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimants. In an appropriate case, where from the evidence brought on record if the Tribunal/court considers that the claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. Gurdayal Singh, reported in (2003) 2 SCC 274 , there would be no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimants. In an appropriate case, where from the evidence brought on record if the Tribunal/court considers that the claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. The proposition of law is not disputed and hence, the claimants would be entitled to compensation of Rs.8,49,000/- as has been found by the Tribunal and the claimants will have to pay the deficit court fees thereupon. 7. Shri Kukday, the learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 does not dispute the position of law that normally the interest payable would be from the date of filing of the claim petition. However, he has urged that this Court has a discretion if it enhances the amount of compensation in an appeal under Section 173 of the M.V. Act to make the payment of interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of passing of the order of the Tribunal. I do not find any justification for restricting the interest from the date of passing of the award by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Thus, the claimants shall be entitled to the enhanced interest on the compensation at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition on the amount of Rs.8,49,000/-. 8. The learned counsel Shri Kukday does not dispute the fact that thee was no pleading before the Tribunal by the respondent No. 2 Reliance General Insurance Company in the written statement that in case it is found that the owners are entitled to reimbursement, then the liability to pay the compensation awarded should be proportionately divided between the two insurance companies with whom the vehicle was insured on the date of occurrence of accident on 29.01.2008. The contention, therefore, does not deserve any consideration at this appellate stage. 9. No doubt, the Tribunal has held that the respondent No. 2 Reliance General Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the claimants and thereafter to recover it from the owner of the vehicle. The contention, therefore, does not deserve any consideration at this appellate stage. 9. No doubt, the Tribunal has held that the respondent No. 2 Reliance General Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the claimants and thereafter to recover it from the owner of the vehicle. However, in the facts of the present case, it is not possible to hold that before release of the amount deposited by the respondent No. 2 Reliance General Insurance Company, the owner should be directed to secure the payment of compensation made to the claimants. It was a third party claim and the liability of the respondent No. 2 Reliance General Insurance Company was unlimited. The Tribunal has recorded the specific finding that the respondent No. 2 Reliance General Insurance Company has failed to prove that the communication about the dishonour of cheque submitted towards premium was sent to the Regional Transport Office. The liability of respondent No. 2 Reliance General Insurance Company is absolute and hence, there is no occasion to direct furnishing of security by the owner as a condition precedent for withdrawal of the amount deposited before the tribunal. 10. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed. The claimants are held entitled to total compensation of Rs.8,49,000/- inclusive of the amount of Rs.50,000/- towards the interim compensation granted under Section 140 of the M.V.Act along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the realization of the entire amount. The appellants/claimants shall pay the deficit Court fees, if any, within a period of 15 days from today. The appellants/claimants shall be entitled to withdraw the enhanced amount of compensation only upon the payment of deficit Court fees. The award passed by the Tribunal stands modified accordingly. No order as to costs.