Judgment Vinod Chatterji Koul, J.—National Insurance Company Limited – appellant herein, is aggrieved of and seeks setting-aside of Award dated 23rd May 2012, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Leh, (for brevity “Tribunal”), on a Claim Petition no.1/claim, titled Sonam Choron and others v. Thukjay Wangbo and another, saddling appellant Insurance Company with liability to indemnify insured and pay compensation of Rs.14,32,180 along with 8% interest from the date of institution of claim petition till final realization, on the grounds mentioned in Appeal on hand. 2. I have gone through the file and considered the matter. 3. It is averred in the Appeal that vehicle (Jeep Taxi) bearing Registration no.JKT-4456, involved in accident, was not insured on the date of accident, i.e. 1st November 2003, with appellant Insurance Company and the alleged policy copy shown before the Tribunal was not issued by concerned Branch, i.e. Residency Road, Srinagar; even the policy does not bear any number and therefore the policy was fake. It is also averred that an FIR was also lodged in police station Kothi Bagh, Srinagar, against owner of vehicle for having been in possession of fake policy. The Tribunal is stated to have erred while holding that appellant Insurance Company has taken many contradictory stands. It is averred that the stand of appellant Insurance Company all along before the Tribunal was that policy in question was fake. Even at the time of passing of interim Award, the plea of policy being fake was taken but the Tribunal passed interim Award dated 8th December 2005. It is maintained that assuming but not admitting that appellant Insurance Company is liable to pay any compensation, even then the same is excessive arbitrary and unjust as claimants have failed to prove that deceased was serving in ITBP; even they have not proved salary of deceased on the date of accident. It is also stated that Last Pay Certificate of deceased, i.e. 21st April 2011, which shows that deceased was drawing Rs.6912/- as monthly salary to have been drawn in April 2011 whereas he has died in an accident on 1st November 2003 and even the age of deceased was not proved. It is also stated that Last Pay Certificate of deceased, i.e. 21st April 2011, which shows that deceased was drawing Rs.6912/- as monthly salary to have been drawn in April 2011 whereas he has died in an accident on 1st November 2003 and even the age of deceased was not proved. The Tribunal is stated to have not been justified in deducting 1/4th of income of deceased on account of personal expenses; besides the Tribunal, without any material on record, enhanced the salary of deceased by 50% on account of future prospects. It is averred that Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.25,000/- on account of loss of consortium; Rs.12500/- on account of loss of estate; Rs.10,000/- on account of funeral expenses. According to learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company, Tribunal erred in directing to pay 8% interest. 4. Taking into account grounds raised in the Appeal and submissions made by learned counsel for parties, I have gone through the record of the Tribunal and considered the matter. 5. Respondents 1 to 5 filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, before the Tribunal on 6th May 2004, which was diarised and registered as Claim Petition no.17/Claim. Before Tribunal, it was maintained by respondents 1 to 5 that on 1st November 2003, deceased, namely, Tsewang Yangjor son of Nawang Rigzin, was hit by offending vehicle, plied by respondent no.6 herein, near petrol pump at Choglamsar, while he was going to his residence after finishing his duty hours, as a result whereof he succumbed to injuries. According to respondents 1 to 5, deceased was working in ITBP 18th Battalion and was 35 years old at the time of accident and that deceased was drawing salary of Rs.8000/- per month and respondents 1 to 5 had been dependent upon his earnings. On the edifice of averments made in claim petition, respondents 1 to 5 claimed Rs.26.30 Lacs as compensation. 6. Appellant Insurance Company caused its appearance before the Tribunal. It denied the liability to indemnify insured on the ground that offending vehicle was driven in contravention of terms and conditions of Insurance Policy by driver as he was not having a valid driving licence on the date of accident and owner of vehicle permitted a student to work as conductor. Appellant Insurance Company caused its appearance before the Tribunal. It denied the liability to indemnify insured on the ground that offending vehicle was driven in contravention of terms and conditions of Insurance Policy by driver as he was not having a valid driving licence on the date of accident and owner of vehicle permitted a student to work as conductor. It was also insisted by appellant Insurance Company before the Tribunal that insurance policy placed on record was fake and compensation sought for by respondents 1 to 5 was highly exorbitant. 7. The Tribunal, upon perusal of pleadings of parties, settled following Issues for adjudication: 1. Whether respondent no.1 by driving his vehicle No.JKT-4456 rashly and negligently caused accident as a result of which Tsewang Yangjor lost his life near ITBP Camp, Choglamsar? OPP 2. If issue no.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled? OPP 3. Whether the Insurance policy produced by the respondents was fake and as such respondents/ Insurance company was not liable to indemnify? OPD-2 4. Relief. 8. Claimants/respondents 1 to 5 produced and examined one witness, namely, Sonam Palson; besides claimant no.1, Sonam Choran. Appellant Insurance Company produced one witness, namely, Ratan Lal, Branch Manager, NIC, Leh. 9. Insofar as Issue no.1 (viz. Whether respondent no.1 by driving his vehicle No.JKT-4456 rashly and negligently caused accident as a result of which Tsewang Yangjor lost his life near ITBP Camp, Choglamsar?) is concerned, burden to prove it was on claimants/respondents 1 to 5. Witness, namely, Sonam Paldon, adduced by claimants before Tribunal, in categoric terms deposed that he was an eyewitness to accident, in which deceased was hit by offending vehicle. To rebut or discredit this evidence, appellant Insurance Company, however, did not adduce any evidence. So, evidence of claimants before Tribunal was unshaken and resultantly has rightly been considered by Tribunal while deciding Issue no.1 in favour of claimants and against appellant Insurance Company. It is true beyond any doubt that Tsewang Yangjor died in accident. 10. The contention of appellant Insurance Company and strenuously iterated by its learned counsel that insurance policy produced by claimants / respondents 1 to 5 before Tribunal is fake and, thus, appellant Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify, has been duly registered by Tribunal while framing Issue no.3. 10. The contention of appellant Insurance Company and strenuously iterated by its learned counsel that insurance policy produced by claimants / respondents 1 to 5 before Tribunal is fake and, thus, appellant Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify, has been duly registered by Tribunal while framing Issue no.3. The stand taken by appellant Insurance Company that insurance policy produced by claimants / respondents 1 to 5 was fake, with respect whereof Issue no.3 was framed by Tribunal, was duty of appellant Insurance Company to prove. It produced a witness, namely, Ratan Lal, Branch Manager, NIC, Leh. He deposed that insurance policy was fake as it was hand written and that insurance company had already been issuing computerised policy by that time, it was shown to have been issued. However, he admitted that policy was issued on proforma of Insurance Company and it bore seal of the Branch; even signatures of the officer thereon have not been disputed; instead witness maintained stupendous silence about the same. The Tribunal, after taking into account statement of witness of appellant Insurance Company, has rightly said that mere registration of FIR would not absolve Insurance Company of its liability and responsibility. According to Tribunal appellant Insurance company has taken contradictory stands as it one place it says that vehicle was being used in contravention of terms of policy and at other place it claims that policy was fake. Because of this reason given, the Tribunal decided Issue no.3 in favour of claimants/respondents 1 to 5. 11. A report has come on file, bearing no.1464/5A/KB/20 dated 21st October 2020 from Station House Officer police station Kothi Bagh, Srinagar, addressed to Kohinoor Investigators Private Limited, which says that the FIR lodged by appellant Insurance Company has been closed as untraced. So, on this count as well appellant’s claim that FIR was lodged in police station Kothi Bagh, Srinagar, against owner of vehicle for having been in possession of fake policy or that insurance policy is fake, does not have leg to stand on and as a consequence whereof, is misconceived and specious. 12. Another contention of appellant Insurance Company is that compensation granted by Tribunal is highly exorbitant. Qua this assertion, again, Tribunal has framed Issue no.2 (viz.to what amount of compensation claimants are entitled). Burden whereof was on the shoulders of claimants. Tribunal has taken all facets of the matter into consideration. 12. Another contention of appellant Insurance Company is that compensation granted by Tribunal is highly exorbitant. Qua this assertion, again, Tribunal has framed Issue no.2 (viz.to what amount of compensation claimants are entitled). Burden whereof was on the shoulders of claimants. Tribunal has taken all facets of the matter into consideration. Tribunal has been meticulous while computing compensation. Tribunal has kept in mind and applied law laid down in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and others 2009 (6) SCC 121 . In that view of matter, Issue no.2 has been rightly decided by Tribunal, granting compensation of Rs.14,32,180/- in favour of claimants/respondents 1 to 5. In the above milieu, it is germane to add that there cannot be actual compensation for anguish of heart or for mental tribulations. The quintessentiality lies in the pragmatic computation of the loss sustained which has to be in the realm of realistic approximation. Therefore, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 stipulates that there should be grant of “just compensation”. Thus, it becomes a challenge for a court of law to determine “just compensation” which is neither a bonanza nor a windfall, and simultaneously, should not be a pittance.” [Vide: K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2012) 12 SCC 274 ]. 13. However, insofar as contention of learned counsel for appellant as regards payment of interest @ 8% per annum is concerned, the same has sum and substance. Tribunal has wrongly applied 8% interest. There shall be interest of 6% per annum from the date of institution of the claim till final realisation. To that extent impugned Award is set-aside and modified. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the Appeal is dismissed. Nevertheless, impugned Award dated 23rd May 2012, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Leh, as regards payment of interest @ 8%, is set-aside and the Award is modified to the extent that interest @ 6% shall be paid by appellant Insurance Company. 15. Record of the Tribunal, if summoned/received, be sent down along with copy of this judgment.