JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (oral) Subject matter of this appeal is the award dated 4th June, 2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Chamba, Division Chamba (Himachal Pradesh) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), in M.A.C. Petition No. 20/2008, titled as Smt. Misso Devi & another versus Shri Bhagi & others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.5,58,400/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and the insurer was saddled with liability (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned award’). 2. The claimants, driver and owner have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far it relates to them. 3. The insurer has questioned the impugned award on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 4. Thus, only following three questions are to be determined in this appeal: 1. The driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident; 2. The alleged driver was not driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident; and 3. The compensation amount awarded is excessive. 5. In order to return findings on the aforesaid points, it is necessary to give brief resume of the case, the womb of which has given birth to the present appeal. 6. Driver, namely, Nikku Ram had driven the vehicle i.e. Alto Car bearing registration H.P. HP-01C-0152, rashly and negligently, on 28.06.2007, near Dhundha Morh near Kharamukh, Tehsil Bharmour, District Chamba and caused the accident, in which deceased, namely, Rakesh Kumar, sustained injuries. He was taken to Primary Health Centre, Garola and was referred to Regional Hospital Chamba. Thereafter, he was taken to K.D. Hospital, Amritsar. The deceased remained admitted in the hospital right from 29.06.2007 to 05.08.2007. Again, he was admitted in Regional Hospital, Chamba, where he succumbed to the injuries on 08.08.2007. 7. The respondents contested the claim petition on the grounds taken in their memo of objections. 8. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether Shri Rakesh Kumar died due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. HP-01C-0152 by respondent Nikku Ram as alleged? ….OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? …OPP 3. 8. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether Shri Rakesh Kumar died due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. HP-01C-0152 by respondent Nikku Ram as alleged? ….OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? …OPP 3. Whether driver of the vehicle no. HP- 01C-0152 was holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? …OPR-3 4. Whether the petition is not maintainable? …OPR-3 5. Whether the petitioners have no cause of action and locus standi to file the present petition? …OPR-3 6. Relief.” Issue No. 1. 9. FIR No. 33 of 2007, dated 28.06.2007, under Sections 279, 337 & 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for short ‘the MV Act’ (Ext. PW-3/A) was registered against driver Nikku Ram in Police Station Bharmour. Investigation was conducted and final charge-sheet came to be presented before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, District Chamba, which culminated into Case No. 398-1/07/11-II/08 titled as State of H.P. versus Nikku Ram. After facing the trial, driver Nikku Ram came to be acquitted vide judgment dated 25.07.2011, while granting benefit of doubt. 10. The parties led evidence. The Tribunal after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, passed the impugned award. 11. Nikku Ram has not questioned the findings returned on Issue No. 1. 12. Having said so, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly decided Issue No. 1, needs no interference. 13. Before I deal with Issue No. 2, I deem it proper to deal with issues 3 to 5. Issues No. 3 to 5. 14. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence, was holding a learner’s licence, which is at page 167 of the Tribunal’s file (Ext. R-3). The argument of the learned Counsel is devoid of any force for the following reasons. 15. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time and the owner has committed willful breach, has failed to prove the same. 16. The owner has placed on record his affidavit (Ext. 15. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time and the owner has committed willful breach, has failed to prove the same. 16. The owner has placed on record his affidavit (Ext. R-1), wherein he has specifically pleaded that he had engaged driver Nikku Ram after due verification of his driving licence who was holding a valid and effective driving licence. Thus, it can safely be held that the owner had discharged his duties, which he was supposed to do. 17. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the owner has committed willful breach in terms of the mandate of Sections 147 & 149 of the MV Act read with the terms and conditions contained in the insurance policy, as held by the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Swaran Singh & others, reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1531. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of para 105 of the judgment herein below: “105. ..................... (i) ......................... (ii) ........................ (iii) The breach of policy condition e.g. disqualification of driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in subsection (2) (a) (ii) of Section 149, have to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. (iv) The insurance companies are, however, with a view to avoid their liability, must not only establish the available defences raised in the said proceedings but must also establish 'breach' on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof wherefore would be on them. (v)......................... (iv) The insurance companies are, however, with a view to avoid their liability, must not only establish the available defences raised in the said proceedings but must also establish 'breach' on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof wherefore would be on them. (v)......................... (vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards insured unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply “the rule of main purpose” and the concept of “fundamental breach” to allow defences available to the insured under Section 149 (2) of available the Act.” 18. It is also profitable to reproduce para 10 of the latest judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation versus National Insurance Company, reported in (2013) 10 Supreme Court Cases 217, me hereinbelow: “10. In a claim for compensation, it is certainly open to the insurer under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) to take a defence that the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident was not duly licensed. Once such a defence is taken, the onus is on the insurer. But even after it is proved that the licence possessed by the driver was a fake one, whether there is liability on the insurer is the moot question. As far as the owner of the vehicle is concerned, when he hires a driver, he has to check whether the driver has a valid driving licence. Thereafter he has to satisfy himself as to the competence of the driver. If satisfied in that regard also, it can be said that the owner had taken reasonable care in employing a person who is qualified and competent to drive the vehicle. The owner cannot be expected to go beyond that, to the extent of verifying the genuineness of the driving licence with the licensing authority before hiring the services of the driver. The owner cannot be expected to go beyond that, to the extent of verifying the genuineness of the driving licence with the licensing authority before hiring the services of the driver. However, the situation would be different if at the time of insurance of the vehicle or thereafter the insurance company requires the owner of the vehicle to have the licence duly verified from the licensing authority or if the attention of the owner of the vehicle is otherwise invited to the allegation that the licence issued to the driver employed by him is a fake one and yet the owner does not take appropriate action for verification of the matter regarding the genuineness of the licence from the licensing authority. That is what is explained in Swaran Singh case. If despite such information with the owner that the licence possessed by his driver is fake, no action is taken by the insured for appropriate verification, then the insured will be at fault and, in such circumstances, the Insurance Company is not liable for the compensation.” 19. This Court in FAO No. 322 of 2011, titled as IFFCO-TOKIO Gen. Insurance Company Limited versus Smt. Joginder Kaur and others, decided on 29.08.2014 and FAO No. 523 of 2007, titled as Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. versus Smt. Rikta alias Kritka & others, decided on 19.12.2014, has laid down the same principle. 20. It was also for the insurer to plead and prove that the claim petition was not maintainable and the claimants had no cause of action and locus standi to file the claim petition, has not led any evidence. 21. The Tribunal has rightly made the discussion from paras 31 to 34 of the impugned award. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issues No. 3 to 5 are upheld. 22. The factum of insurance is admitted. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly saddled the insurer-insurance company with the liability. Issue No.2. 23. It appears that the amount of compensation is meager for the following reasons. 24. The deceased after the accident, was admitted for about one and half month in three hospitals. Not only the deceased suffered pain and sufferings, but his parents and relatives were running from pillar to post and from post to pillar at least for about two months and were trying their level best to save his life. 25. 24. The deceased after the accident, was admitted for about one and half month in three hospitals. Not only the deceased suffered pain and sufferings, but his parents and relatives were running from pillar to post and from post to pillar at least for about two months and were trying their level best to save his life. 25. The Tribunal after examining the medical bills on the file, has rightly awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,02,417/- to the claimants under the head ‘medical expenses’, but has fallen in an error in not awarding compensation under the head ‘pain and sufferings’. 26. The Tribunal has also not made assessment correctly. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 26 years at the time of accident and the Tribunal has rightly taken his monthly income as Rs. 3500/-, which has not been questioned by the claimants and the insurer. 27. The Tribunal has also fallen in an error in deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased, 50% was to be deducted keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 , upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in a case titled as Reshma Kumari & others versus Mohan and another, reported in 2013 AIR (SCW) 3120, as he was a bachelor. Accordingly, it is held that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs. 1750/- per month. 28. The Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of ‘11’. The multiplier of ’15’ was to be applied in view of the judgments, supra, read with the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in case titled as Munna Lal Jain & another versus Vipin Kumar Sharma & others, reported in 2015 AIR SCW 3105. 29. Accordingly, the claimants are held entitled to the tune of Rs. 1750/- x 12 = Rs.21,000 x 15 = Rs.3,15,000/- under the head ‘loss of income’. 30. The Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- under the ‘vehicles charges, Rs. 10,000/- under the head ‘attendant charges, Rs. 40,000/- under the head ‘loss of love and affection’ and Rs. 10,000/- under the head ‘funeral expenses, is accordingly maintained. 31. By guess work, it can be safely held that the claimants are also entitled to Rs. 20,000/- under the ‘vehicles charges, Rs. 10,000/- under the head ‘attendant charges, Rs. 40,000/- under the head ‘loss of love and affection’ and Rs. 10,000/- under the head ‘funeral expenses, is accordingly maintained. 31. By guess work, it can be safely held that the claimants are also entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/- under the head ‘pain and sufferings’. 32. Having said so, the claimants are held entitled for compensation under the following heads as under:- (i) Loss of income Rs. 3,15,000/- (ii) Medical expenses Rs. 3,02,417/- (iii) Pain and sufferings Rs. 1,00,000/- (iv) Vehicles’ charges Rs. 20,000/- (v) Attendant charges Rs. 10,000/- (vi) Loss of love & affection Rs. 40,000/- (vii) Funeral expenses Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. 7,97,417/- 33. The moot question is-whether the amount awarded can be enhanced without filing objections or cross appeals by the claimants? 34. It would be profitable to reproduce Section 168 (1) of the MV Act herein: "168. Award of the Claims Tribunal - On receipt of an application for compensation made under section 166 , the Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the application to the insurer and after giving the parties (including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim or, as the case may be, each of the claims and, subject to the provisions of section 162 may make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid and in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them, as the case may be: ......................" 35. The mandate of Section 168 (1) (supra) is to 'determine the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just'. 36. Keeping in view the object of granting of compensation and the legislature's wisdom read with the amendment made in the MV Act in the year 1994, it is for the Tribunal or the Appellate Court to assess the just compensation and is within its powers to grant the compensation more than what is claimed and can enhance the same. 37. Keeping in view the object of granting of compensation and the legislature's wisdom read with the amendment made in the MV Act in the year 1994, it is for the Tribunal or the Appellate Court to assess the just compensation and is within its powers to grant the compensation more than what is claimed and can enhance the same. 37. This Court in a case titled as United India Insurance Company Ltd. versus Smt. Kulwant Kaur, reported in Latest HLJ 2014 (HP) 174, held that the Tribunal as well as the Appellate Court is/are within the jurisdiction to enhance the compensation and grant more than what is claimed. 38. The same view was taken by the Apex Court in the case of Nagappa versus Gurudayal Singh and others, reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 674. It is apt to reproduce paras 7, 9 and 10 of the judgment herein: “7. Firstly, under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as “the MV Act”) there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case where from the evidence brought on record if Tribunal/Court considers that claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. Only embargo is – it should be 'Just' compensation, that is to say, it should be neither arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence. This would be clear by reference to the relevant provisions of the M.V. Act. Section 166 provides that an application for compensation arising out of an accident involving the death of or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both, could be made (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be. Under the proviso to sub-section (1), all the legal representatives of the deceased who have not joined as the claimants are to be impleaded as respondents to the application for compensation. Under the proviso to sub-section (1), all the legal representatives of the deceased who have not joined as the claimants are to be impleaded as respondents to the application for compensation. Other important part of the said Section is sub-section (4) which provides that “the Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of Section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act.” Hence, Claims Tribunal in appropriate case can treat the report forwarded to it as an application for compensation even though no such claim is made or no specified amount is claimed. 8. .......................... 9. It appears that due importance is not given to sub-section (4) of Section 166 which provides that the Tribunal shall treat any report of the accidents forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of Section 158, as an application for compensation under this Act. 10. Thereafter, Section 168 empowers the Claims Tribunal to “make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just”. Therefore, only requirement for determining the compensation is that it must be 'just'. There is no other limitation or restriction on its power for awarding just compensation.” 39. In the case titled as State of Haryana and another versus Jasbir Kaur and others, reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 3696, the Apex Court has discussed the expression 'just'. It is apt to reproduce para 7 of the judgment herein: "7. It has to be kept in view that the Tribunal constituted under the Act as provided in S. 168 is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which is to be in the real sense "damages" which in turn appears to it to be 'just and reasonable'. It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. But at the same time it has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate the compensation must be "just" and it cannot be a bonanza; nor a source of profit; but the same should not be a pittance. The Courts and Tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just. What would be "just" compensation is a vexed question. Statutory provisions clearly indicate the compensation must be "just" and it cannot be a bonanza; nor a source of profit; but the same should not be a pittance. The Courts and Tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just. What would be "just" compensation is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of "just" compensation which is the pivotal consideration. Though by use of the expression "which appears to it to be just" a wide discretion is vested on the Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness. The expression "just" denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness, and non-arbitrary. If it is not so it cannot be just. (See Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation ( AIR 1998 SC 3191 )." 40. The same view has been taken by the Apex Court in a case titled as The Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C. versus Mahadeva Shetty and another, reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 4172. 41. The Apex Court in a case titled as A.P.S.R.T.C. & another versus M. Ramadevi & others, reported in 2008 AIR SCW 1213, held that the Appellate Court was within its jurisdiction and powers in enhancing the compensation despite the fact that the claimants had not questioned the adequacy of the compensation. 42. The Apex Court in the case titled as Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Mohd. Nasir & Anr., reported in 2009 AIR SCW 3717, laid down the same principle while discussing, in para 27 of the judgment, the ratio laid down in the judgments rendered in the cases titled as Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh & Ors, (2003) 2 SCC 274 ; Devki Nandan Bangur and Ors. versus State of Haryana and Ors. 1995 ACJ 1288; Syed Basheer Ahmed & Ors. versus Mohd. Jameel & Anr., (2009) 2 SCC 225 ; National Insurance Co. versus State of Haryana and Ors. 1995 ACJ 1288; Syed Basheer Ahmed & Ors. versus Mohd. Jameel & Anr., (2009) 2 SCC 225 ; National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Laxmi Narain Dhut, (2007) 3 SCC 700 ; Punjab State Electricity Board Ltd. versus Zora Singh and Others (2005) 6 SCC 776 ; APSRTC versus STAT and State of Haryana & Ors. versus Shakuntla Devi, 2008 (13) SCALE 621 . 43. The Apex Court in another case titled as Ningamma & another versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in AIR SCW 4916, held that the Court is duty bound to award just compensation to which the claimants are entitled to. It is profitable to reproduce para 25 of the judgment herein: “25. Undoubtedly, Section 166 of the MVA deals with “Just Compensation” and even if in the pleadings no specific claim was made under section 166 of the MVA, in our considered opinion a party should not be deprived from getting “Just Compensation” in case the claimant is able to make out a case under any provision of law. Needless to say, the MVA is beneficial and welfare legislation. In fact, the Court is duty bound and entitled to award “Just Compensation” irrespective of the fact whether any plea in that behalf was raised by the claimant or not. However, whether or not the claimants would be governed with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and whether or not the provisions of Section 147 of the MVA would be applicable in the present case and also whether or not there was rash and negligent driving on the part of the deceased, are essentially a matter of fact which was required to be considered and answered at least by the High Court.” 44. The Apex Court in a latest judgment in a case titled Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza & others versus Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service, reported in 2013 AIR SCW 5800, has specifically held that compensation can be enhanced while deciding the appeal, even though prayer for enhancing the compensation is not made by way of appeal or cross appeal/objections. It is apt to reproduce para 9 of the judgment herein: “9. It is apt to reproduce para 9 of the judgment herein: “9. In view of the aforesaid decision of this Court, we are of the view that the legal representatives of the deceased are entitled to the compensation as mentioned under the various heads in the table as provided above in this judgment even though certain claims were not preferred by them as we are of the view that they are legally and legitimately entitled for the said claims. Accordingly we award the compensation, more than what was claimed by them as it is the statutory duty of the Tribunal and the appellate court to award just and reasonable compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased to mitigate their hardship and agony as held by this Court in a catena of cases. Therefore, this Court has awarded just and reasonable compensation in favour of the appellants as they filed application claiming compensation under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. Keeping in view the aforesaid relevant facts and legal evidence on record and in the absence of rebuttal evidence adduced by the respondent, we determine just and reasonable compensation by awarding a total sum of Rs. 16,96,000/- with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing the claim petition till the date payment is made to the appellants.” 45. The Apex Court in a latest judgment in the case titled as Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza & others versus Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service, reported in 2013 AIR SCW 5800, has laid down the same proposition of law and held that the Tribunal as well as the Appellate Court can ignore the claim made by the claimant in the application for compensation. It is apt to reproduce para 6 of the judgment herein: "6. After considering the decisions of this Court in Santosh Devi as well as Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (supra), we are of the opinion that it is the duty of the Court to fix a just compensation. At the time of fixing such compensation, the court should not succumb to the niceties or technicalities to grant just compensation in favour of the claimant. At the time of fixing such compensation, the court should not succumb to the niceties or technicalities to grant just compensation in favour of the claimant. It is the duty of the court to equate, as far as possible, the misery on account of the accident with the compensation so that the injured or the dependants should not face the vagaries of life on account of discontinuance of the income earned by the victim. Therefore, it will be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to award just, equitable, fair and reasonable compensation judging the situation prevailing at that point of time with reference to the settled principles on assessment of damages. In doing so, the Tribunal can also ignore the claim made by the claimant in the application for compensation with the prime object to assess the award based on the principle that the award should be just, equitable, fair and reasonable compensation." 46. Having said so, the Tribunal/Appellate Court is within its powers to award the just compensation. 47. Similar principles of law have been laid down by this Court in FAO No. 663 of 2008 titled Mani Devi versus Sh. Baldev and another decided on 7.8.2015, FAO No. 224 of 2008 titled Hem Ram and another versus Krishan Ram and another decided on 29.5.2015, alongwith connected matters, FAO No.226 of 2006 titled United India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Kulwant Kaur and another decided on 8.3.2014 and FAO No.524 of 2007 titled Jagdish versus Rahul Bus services and others decided on 15.5.2015. 48. The Tribunal has awarded interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, is on the higher side. 49. It is a beaten law of the land that the rate of interest should be awarded as per the prevailing rates, in view of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in cases titled as United India Insurance Co. 49. It is a beaten law of the land that the rate of interest should be awarded as per the prevailing rates, in view of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in cases titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others versus Patricia Jean Mahajan and others, reported in (2002) 6 SCC 281 ; Satosh Devi versus National Insurance Company Ltd. and others, reported in 2012 AIR SCW 2892; Amrit Bhanu Shali and others versus National Insurance Company Limited and others reported in (2012) 11 SCC 738 ; Smt. Savita versus Binder Singh & others, reported in 2014, AIR SCW 2053; Kalpanaraj & others versus Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpn Corpn., reported in 2014 AIR SCW 2982; Amresh Kumari versus Niranjan Lal Jagdish Pd. Jain and others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 433 , and Mohinder Kaur and others versus Hira Nand Sindhi (Ghoriwala) and another, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 434 , and discussed by this Court in a batch of FAO No. 256 of 2010, titled as Oriental Insurance Company versus Smt. Indiro and others, being the lead case, decided on 19.06.2015. 50. Having said so, I deem it proper to reduce the rate of interest from 12% per annum to 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 51. The impugned award is modified, as indicated above. 52. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount alongwith interest, within a period of eight weeks from today before the Registry. On deposit, the Registry is directed to release the entire amount in favour of the claimants, strictly in terms of conditions contained in the impugned award, through payees account cheque or by depositing the same in their accounts. 53. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. 54. Send down the records after placing a copy of the judgment on the Tribunal's file.