Judgment Mr. H.S. Madaan, J.:-CM-14798-CII-2014 There is a delay of 67 days in filing of the appeal. Anapplication seeking condonation of delay has been filed. Heard. For thereasons mentioned in the application, such delay stands condoned. The application is disposed of accordingly. Main Case 2. Briefly stated facts of the case that on account of death ofReena Kumari, in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on29.09.2010 at about 5 pm in the area of Sector 34, Chandigarh, statedlyon account of rash and negligent driving of motorcycle No.CH-04-F-5202 (for short ‘the offending motorcycle’) make Yamaha by respondentNo.1 Tanuj Singla, Vikram Singh, husband of the deceased had brought aclaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 againstrespondents i.e. Tanuj Singla-driver, Mrs. Deep Shikha-owner and UnitedNew India Insurance Company, Chandigarh-insurer of the offendingmotorcycle. 3. Notice of the claim petition was given to the respondents.However, only respondent Nos.2 & 3 put in appearance to offer a contest,whereas, respondent No. 1 did not appear despite service and wasproceeded against ex parte. The appearing respondents contested theclaim petition. Issues on merits were framed. The parties were givenadequate opportunities to lead evidence in support of their respectiveclaims. On conclusion of trial, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,Chandigarh (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’), vide award dated 09.12.2013,accepted the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.18,77,765/-to the claimant, payable by all the three respondents jointly and severallyalong with interest @ 6% pa from the date of filing of claim petition tillactual realization. 4. The claimant being dissatisfied with the rate of interestgranted, has approached this Court, by way of filing the present appeal,notice of which was given to respondent No.3-insurance company andsuch insurance company has appeared through counsel. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides goingthrough the record. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant has confined hisargument with regard to the rate of interest on the compensation amountawarded by the Tribunal. 7. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides goingthrough the record. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant has confined hisargument with regard to the rate of interest on the compensation amountawarded by the Tribunal. 7. The interest awarded by the Tribunal @ 6% p.a., is on thelower side and in my considered view, the proper rate of interest to beawarded would be 7.5% p.a. Under the circumstances, the appeal isaccepted partly and the impugned award is modified to the extent that theclaimant would be entitled to a total sum of Rs.18,77,765/- ascompensation on account of death of Mrs.Reena Kumari, payable by allthe three respondents jointly and severally along with interest @ 7.5%p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition till actual realization. 8. No other argument was advanced by learned counsel for theappellant. 9. The appeal stands allowed, to that extent.