JUDGMENT : C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. 1. The respondent-insurance company before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Attingal, in O.P. (MV) No. 1120/2006 is the appellant herein, challenging the award. The respondents 1 to 3 were the claimants 1, 2 and 4 before the Tribunal. The 3rd claimant died after the award and hence not made a party in this appeal. In the present appeal there is no challenge against the finding of the Tribunal on the aspect of the negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle which was insured with the appellant company. In other words, the appellant is not disputing their liability for payment of the compensation for which the claimants are entitled. 2. Main challenge in this appeal is based on a contention that the amount awarded under different heads are excessive. Further contention is against the stipulation for payment of higher rate of interest at 12% after a period of two months from the date of the award. 3. Heard the standing counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3. 4. One of the main contentions raised by the appellant is that, the Tribunal went erred in making an addition of 50% towards future prospects while fixing the multiplicand for computing the loss of dependency, by relying on a decision of honourable supreme court in Santhosh Devi vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others, 2012 ACJ 1428 . Contention of the appellant is that, the honourable supreme court had directed addition of 50% towards future prospects only in cases where the person died/injured is a salaried employee getting a fixed income. In the case of self employed persons below the age of 50, guidelines was fixed to add only 30% towards future prospects. It is pointed out that, in the case at hand, despite the claim that the deceased was a driver earning monthly income of Rs. 3,000/- no proof was adduced to substantiate the occupation or income. Learned counsel urged that the claimants have failed even to produce his driving licence, if any. Therefore it is contended that the person died cannot be included in the category of self employed persons and hence the addition made towards future prospects cannot be sustained. 5. We find merit in the above said contention of the appellant. Learned counsel urged that the claimants have failed even to produce his driving licence, if any. Therefore it is contended that the person died cannot be included in the category of self employed persons and hence the addition made towards future prospects cannot be sustained. 5. We find merit in the above said contention of the appellant. But at the same time, considering the socioeconomic situations which prevailed during the year 2006 and also on considering the fact that the claimants, who were the wife, minor child, father and sister of the deceased, were all dependent upon the deceased for their livelihood, the notional amount of Rs. 3,000/- fixed as income for the purpose of computing the loss of dependency is on the lower side. We also take note that the amount of compensation awarded under various other heads are also on the lower side. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the amount wrongly awarded towards future prospects can be set off against the inadequacy in the quantum of compensation fixed under different other heads, including the notional income fixed. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 6. Another important point raised by the appellant is regarding awarding of higher rate of interest at 12% per annum, after two months from the date of the award. We notice that the Tribunal directed the appellant insurance company to make payment of the amount of compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of the claim petition, within 60 days from the date of the award. The Tribunal further directed that, failing deposit of the amount within the time stipulated as above, the claimants will be entitled for enhanced interest @ 12% per annum on the amount payable thereafter. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the stipulation for payment of a higher rate of interest cannot be sustained as legal and justifiable. It is pointed out that, there is no contractual obligation on the part of the insurance company making them liable for payment of the amount of compensation. On the other hand, the appellant company is only indemnifying the insured. Therefore it was not justifiable for the Tribunal to insist upon the insurance company to pay a higher rate of interest, which will be in the nature of penalizing the company. 7. On the other hand, the appellant company is only indemnifying the insured. Therefore it was not justifiable for the Tribunal to insist upon the insurance company to pay a higher rate of interest, which will be in the nature of penalizing the company. 7. The above contention was resisted by learned counsel appearing for the respondents based on the submission that the Tribunal was well within its powers to insist upon a time limit for payment of the amount awarded and also entitled to stipulate payment of a higher rate of interest in case of default, from the date of such default. 8. The issue in this regard now remains settled through decisions of this court and the hon'ble Supreme Court. Section 110 CC of the Motor Vehicles Act gives discretion to the Tribunal to award reasonable interest, after taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of each case. There is no prohibition that it shall not award interest at any particular rate. In a decision of the High Court of Gujarat in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shanabhai Arjanbhai and Another, AIR 1987 Guj. 185 it was held that, it cannot be said that the order passed by the Tribunal awarding interest @ 12% from the date of the award, is in any way illegal or erroneous. In this regard reliance was placed on the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in Sukhbinder Kaur's Case (1982) 24 SCC 348. 9. In a later decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in Haji Zainullah Khan (dead) by LRs. vs. Nagar Mahapalika Allahabad, (1994) 5 SCC 667 : 1994 KHC 1254 the apex court ordered interest @ 8% from the date of filing of the application till the pronouncement of the judgment by the High Court, and thereafter at 12% till the date of the payment. It further directed that in case of nonpayment of the compensation within 3 months following the month of the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court, future interest should be payable at 15%. 10. In National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Keshav Bahadur, AIR 2004 SC 1581 : 2004 KHC 769 the hon'ble Supreme Court held that, retrospective enhancement in the rate of interest for default in payment of compensation cannot be sustained. 10. In National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Keshav Bahadur, AIR 2004 SC 1581 : 2004 KHC 769 the hon'ble Supreme Court held that, retrospective enhancement in the rate of interest for default in payment of compensation cannot be sustained. It is held that, once the discretion has been exercised by the Tribunal to award simple interest on the amount of compensation at a particular rate and from a particular date, there is no scope for retrospective enhancement. The dictum contained in Keshav Bahadur's Case (supra) was followed by a Division Bench of this court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. M.K. Moidu and Others, 2011 (4) KLT 154 : 2011 (4) KHC 756 . It is held that, the Tribunal can award enhanced rate of interest from the date of the lapse of the time stipulated for deposit, but not retrospectively. Referring to Keshav Bahadur's case (supra) it is held that, Section 110 CC of the Act confers a discretion on the Tribunal to award interest. The same is meant to be exercised in cases where the claimant can claim it as a matter of right. In the above background, it is to be judged whether the stipulation for higher rate of interest in case of default can be imposed by the Tribunal. Once the discretion has been exercised by the Tribunal to award simple interest on the amount of compensation at a particular rate and from a particular date, there is no scope for retrospective enhancement for the default in payment of compensation. No express or implied power in this regard can be culled out from Section 110 CC or from Section 171 of the new Act. Such a direction in the award for retrospective enhancement of interest for default in payment, together with interest payable thereon, would virtually amount to imposition of penalty, which is not statutorily envisaged and prescribed. Therefore this court held that the order of the Tribunal so far it relates to the direction to pay interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization in case the appellant fails to deposit the amount within 3 months from the date of the award, is liable to be set aside. Therefore this court held that the order of the Tribunal so far it relates to the direction to pay interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization in case the appellant fails to deposit the amount within 3 months from the date of the award, is liable to be set aside. But it is held that if the award amount is not deposited within the time prescribed by the Tribunal, it would be perfectly justified in awarding enhanced rate of interest, but payable only from that date till the date of payment, but not retrospectively. 11. From the case law remaining settled as mentioned above it is clear that, higher rate of interest can be ordered only from the date of the default only on a prospective basis. In the case at hand, the Tribunal ordered the insurance company to make payment of the amount of compensation along with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the period of expiry of 60 days from the date of the award, failing which it was held that, the claimants will be entitled enhanced rate at 12% per annum on the amount payable thereafter (emphasis supplied). Therefore it is clear and evident that the enhanced rate of interest become payable only on default and that too only on a prospective basis. Therefore the appellant cannot successfully challenge the award of the higher rate of interest ordered in the case at hand. 12. However, taking into consideration of the fact that the appellant insurance company had prosecuted the matter bonafidely in the above appeal, we are inclined to extent the time stipulated by the Tribunal for making payment of the amount, till the expiry of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the appellant makes payment of the amount of compensation determined along with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of payment, within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, that will be sufficient compliance of the award. But on failure to make payment of the amount within the time stipulated as above, the interest shall be calculated on the defaulted amount at 12% per annum on a prospective basis. 13. The above appeal is disposed of as above. But on failure to make payment of the amount within the time stipulated as above, the interest shall be calculated on the defaulted amount at 12% per annum on a prospective basis. 13. The above appeal is disposed of as above. There will be no order as to cost.