JUDGMENT : B.VEERAPPA, J. The claimants, who are the mother, father and brother of the deceased have filed the present Miscellaneous First Appeal against the judgment and award dated 21.11.2019 made in MVC No.1618/2018 on the file of the XIV Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-10), insofar deducting Rs.17,87,336/- out of the compensation awarded, on the ground that the deceased has not contributed any premium to the Insurance Company, personally. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. I. FACTS OF THE CASE 3. It is the case of the claimants that on 10.02.2018, at about 10.30 am, deceased Sagar N, was riding his Honda Activa motorcycle bearing No.KA01/HU-6345 from Bengaluru towards Kanakapura, slowly and cautiously and when he reached near Vani Talkies, opposite to Yallamma Dasappa Kalyana Mantapa, Kanakapura Town, Kanakapura, at that time, the driver of the Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.KA-42/A-6449 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased’s motorcycle. As a result, the deceased fell down on the road along with motor cycle and sustained grievous injuries all over the body and succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter, dead body was shifted to Kanakapura Government Hospital for postmortem and after the postmortem, the claimants received the dead body and performed the funeral and obsequies ceremony. The deceased Sagar N was aged about 26 years, hale and healthy at the time of the accident and was working as a Process Associate and drawing salary of Rs.27,000/- per month. The claimants are the legal heirs and dependents of the deceased and due to the unexpected death, they lost the sole bread earner. The 1st respondent is the owner and 2nd respondent is the insurer of the offending lorry. Therefore, the claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs.60,00,000/-. II. OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT/ OWNER OF THE LORRY: 4. The first respondent filed objections and denied the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant and fanciful. The accident in question has not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry, on the other hand, due to negligent act of deceased Sagar. The first respondent filed objections and denied the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant and fanciful. The accident in question has not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry, on the other hand, due to negligent act of deceased Sagar. The policy was insured with second respondent and was in force as on the date of the accident and therefore, sought to dismiss the claim petition. III. OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT-INSURANCE COMPANY 5. The second respondent-Insurance Company contended that the claim petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be rejected in limine. The second respondent denied the issuance of the policy to the offending vehicle and contended that the liability, if any, is subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy. It is further contended that the owner and the concerned police have not complied the mandatory provision of Sections 134(c) and 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle and also he had no permit to ply the vehicle as on the date of the accident. Hence, the driver of the offending vehicle has violated the policy conditions. The second respondent also denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased and relationship of the claimants with the deceased and their dependency on the income of the deceased. It was contended that the deceased was riding the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner. The compensation claimed is highly exorbitant and without any basis and therefore, sought to dismiss the claim petition. IV. ISSUES FRAMED BY THE TRIBUNAL 6. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues. (i) Whether the petitioners proves that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Sagar. N? (ii) Whether the petitioners prove that, Sagar.N was died on account of road traffic accident took place near Vani Talkies, Opposite to Yallamma Dasappa Kalyana Mantapa, Kanakapura Town, KanakapuraSathnoor Road, MH209 Road, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagar District due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tipper lorry bearing registration No.KA-42/A-6449 dated 10.02.2018 at about 10.30 pm? (iii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum? From Whom? (iii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum? From Whom? (iv) What order or award? V. WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE PARTIES 7. In order to prove their case, the claimants examined two witnesses as P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked the documents Exs.P.1 to P.24. To disprove the case of the claimants, the respondents examined two witnesses as R.W.1 and R.W.2 and got marked the documents Exs.R.1 to R.5 and Ex.C.1. 8. Considering the entire material on record, the Tribunal recorded a finding that the claimants have proved that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Sagar and the claimants have partly proved that deceased Sagar died on account of road traffic accident that occurred on 10.02.2018 at 10.30 am due to rash and negligent driving of the tipper lorry bearing registration No.KA-42/A-6449, driven by its driver. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.37,89,198/- towards loss of dependency, Rs.50,000/- towards loss of filial consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/towards transportation of dead body, funeral and obsequies ceremony expenses, in total, Rs.38,69,198/-. Out of Rs.37,89,198/- awarded under the head ‘loss of dependency’, the Tribunal deducted Rs.17,82,336/, on the ground that the claimants have already received Rs.17,82,336/- from the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company on account of the death of Sagar and the deceased has not contributed any premium to the Insurance Company, personally. Thus, after deducting Rs.17,82,336/-, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.20,86,862/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Hence the present Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the claimants. 9. The Insurance Company has not filed any Appeal against the impugned judgment and award. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. VI. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS 11. Sri Prakash M.H., learned counsel for the Appellants/ claimants contended that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal deducting Rs.17,82,336/- towards insurance amount is erroneous and contrary to the material on record, cannot be sustained. He further contended that the Tribunal erred in accepting the contention of the insurer and deducted the said amount of insurance which the Appellants have received from the employer through group insurance. He further contended that the Tribunal erred in accepting the contention of the insurer and deducted the said amount of insurance which the Appellants have received from the employer through group insurance. The said amount is the benefit extended by the employer and at any stretch of imagination, it will not be a double benefit nor “pecuniary advantage” to the legal representatives of the deceased. The Tribunal while deducting the said amount, erroneously recorded a finding that the deceased has not contributed anything from his salary. The said observation made by the Tribunal is without any logical basis. The amount awarded towards love and affection is on lower side and requires enhancement. Therefore, sought to allow the Miscellaneous First Appeal. VII. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE INSURANCE COMPANY 12. Per contra, Sri Ashok N.Patil, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/Insurance Company while justifying the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, contended that the Insurance amount is contributed by the employer and not employee/deceased. Therefore, the claimants are not entitled to receive the said amount along with compensation as it will be double benefit to the legal representatives of the deceased, which is impermissible under law. The amount payable by the employer is part and parcel of the amount payable out of accidental injuries and death. Therefore, it can be termed as “pecuniary advantage” comes under Motor Vehicle Act and any amount received by the legal representatives are liable to be deducted out of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. He further contended that the interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% is on the higher side. Though the Insurance Company has not filed any Appeal, this Court exercising Appellate powers, can reduce the rate of interest. Therefore, learned counsel sought to dismiss the Miscellaneous First Appeal. VIII. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION 13. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the points that arise for our consideration are: (i) Whether the Tribunal is justified in deducting the insurance amount deposited by the insurance company amounting to Rs.17,82,336/- in the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal while granting compensation on account of death of deceased in road traffic accident, in the facts and circumstances of the case? (ii) Whether the Tribunal is justified in awarding 9% interest from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit? IX. (ii) Whether the Tribunal is justified in awarding 9% interest from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit? IX. CONSIDERATION 14. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advance by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material, including original records. 15. It is undisputed fact that the deceased was working as Process Associate and drawing salary of Rs.26,535/- per month, as per the salary certificate Ex.P.24 issued by the employer and was aged about 26 years as on the date of the accident. It is also not in dispute that the Tribunal recorded a finding that, deceased died in a road traffic accident on 10.02.2018 at about 10.30 am on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tipper lorry bearing registration No.KA-42/A-6449. It is also not in dispute that the jurisdictional police registered the case against the driver of the lorry as per Exs.P.1 to 7. The finding recorded by the Tribunal that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle is not challenged either by the owner or the Insurance Company. The aforesaid facts are not in dispute. The only issue for consideration is, while determining the compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, whether the Tribunal is justified in deducting Rs.17,82,336/- out of the compensation awarded under the head ‘loss of dependency’? 16. While awarding the compensation, it is well settled that, so far as the general principle of estimating damages under the common law is concerned, it is settled that the pecuniary loss can be ascertained only by balancing on one hand, the loss to the claimant of the future pecuniary benefits that would have accrued to him for the death with the ‘pecuniary advantage’ which from whatever source comes to him by reason of the death. In other words, it is balancing of loss and gain of the claimant occasioned by the death. While interpreting the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is clear, to which there could be no doubt that this Act delivers compensation to the claimant only on account of accidental injury or death and not on account of any other death. Thus the pecuniary advantage accruing under the Motor Vehicles Act has to be deciphered, corelating with the accidental death. Thus the pecuniary advantage accruing under the Motor Vehicles Act has to be deciphered, corelating with the accidental death. The compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is on account of the pecuniary loss to the claimant by accidental injury or death and not other forms of death. If there is a natural death or death by suicide, serious illness, including even death by accident, through train, air flight not involving motor vehicle, would not be covered under the Motor Vehicles Act. Thus, the application of general principle under common law of loss and gain for the computation of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act must corelate to this type of injury or deaths viz., accidental. If the words ‘pecuniary advantage’ from whatever source are to be interpreted to mean any form of death under Motor Vehicles Act, it would dilute all possible benefits conferred on the claimant and would be contrary to the spirit of the law. If the ‘pecuniary advantage’ resulting from death means pecuniary advantage coming under all forms of death then it will include all assets, movable, immovable shares, bank accounts, cash and every amount receivable under any contract. In other words, all heritable assets including what is willed by the deceased etc. This would obliterate both, all possible conferment of economic security to the claimant by the deceased and the intentions of the legislature. By such interpretation the tortfeasor in spite of his wrongful act or negligence, which contributes to death, would have in many cases no liability or meager liability. The general principle of loss and gain takes colour of the Motor Vehicles statute viz., the gain has to be interpreted which is as a result of the accidental death or loss on account of accidental death. Thus, under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act whatever pecuniary advantage is received by the claimant, from whatever source, would only mean which comes to the claimant on account of Motor Vehicle accidental death and not other form of death, in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which reads as under: 166. Thus, under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act whatever pecuniary advantage is received by the claimant, from whatever source, would only mean which comes to the claimant on account of Motor Vehicle accidental death and not other form of death, in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which reads as under: 166. Application for compensation.— (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in subsection (1) of section 165 may be made— (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (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: Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application. 1[(2) Every application under subsection (1) shall be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred, or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed: Provided that where no claim for compensation under section 140 is made in such application, the application shall contain a separate statement to that effect immediately before the signature of the applicant.] 2[***] 3[(4) The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under subsection (6) of section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act.] 17. Sri Ashok N.Patil, learned counsel for the respondent No.1Insurance Company contended with vehemence that the amount not contributed by the deceased-employee, but insured amount was contributed by the employer and therefore, the legal representatives are entitled to compensation only after deducting the amount of insurance payable to the deceased by the employer. Sri Ashok N.Patil, learned counsel for the respondent No.1Insurance Company contended with vehemence that the amount not contributed by the deceased-employee, but insured amount was contributed by the employer and therefore, the legal representatives are entitled to compensation only after deducting the amount of insurance payable to the deceased by the employer. The said contention cannot be accepted for the simple reason that, it would not include that which claimant receives on account of other forms of death, which he would have received even apart from accidental death. The pecuniary advantage would have no correlation to the accidental death for which compensation is computed. Any amount received or receivable not only on account of accidental death, but that would have come to the claimant even otherwise, could not be construed to be the ‘pecuniary advantage’, liable for deduction. However, where the employer insurer his employee, as against “injury or death arising out of an accident”, any amount received out of such insurance on the happening of such incidence may be an amount liable for deduction. 18. Admittedly, in the present case, it is not the case of the Insurance Company that the employer insured his employee/deceased against injury or death arising out of an accident. But the employer/insurer to the employee is in respect of a insurance not corelated to any accident or death arising out of an accident in a road traffic accident. 19. It is significant to record that, in both the sources viz., either under the Motor Vehicles Act or from the employer, the compensation receivable by the claimant is either statutory or through security of the employer securing for his employee in both the cases he receives the amount without his contribution. How thus an amount earned out of one’s labour or contribution towards one’s wealth, savings etc. either for himself or for his family, which such person knows, under the law, has to go to his heirs after his death either by succession or under a Will could be said to be the ‘pecuniary gain’ only on account of one’s accidental death. This, of course, is pecuniary gain but how this is equitable or could be balanced out of the amount to be received as compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. There is no corelation between the two amounts. Not even remotely. This, of course, is pecuniary gain but how this is equitable or could be balanced out of the amount to be received as compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. There is no corelation between the two amounts. Not even remotely. How can an amount of loss and gain of one contract could be made applicable to the loss and gain of another contract. Similarly, how an amount receivable under a statute has any corelation with an amount earned by an individual. Principle of loss and gain has to be on the same place within the same sphere, of course, subject to the contract to the contrary or any provisions of law. The amount insured by the employer to the employee is secured, is certain to be received, while the amount under the Motor Vehicles Act is uncertain and is receivable only on the happening of the event, viz., accident, which may not take place at all. Similarly, family pension is also earned by an employee for the benefit of his family in the form of his contribution in the service in terms of the service conditions receivable by the heirs after his death. The heirs receive family pension even otherwise than accidental death. No corelation between the two. Similarly, life insurance policy is received either by the insured or the heirs of the insured on account of the contract with the insurer, for which insured contributes in the form of premium. It is receivable even by the insured, if he lives till maturity after paying all premium, in the case of death insurer indemnifies to pay the sum to the heirs, again in terms of the contracts for the premium paid. Again, this amount is receivable by the claimant not on account of any accidental death but otherwise on insured’s death. Death is only a step or contingency in terms of the contract, to receive amount. 20. Admittedly, in the present case, though the learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the contribution not by employee during his life time and it is the employer’s contribution, even accepting the said argument for the sake of convenience, the employer contributed insurance only because of the employment. It was a contract between the employer and employee. Similarly any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. It was a contract between the employer and employee. Similarly any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. though are all a pecuniary advantage receivable by the heirs on account of one’s death but all these have no corelation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death. How could such an amount come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as ‘pecuniary advantage’ liable for deduction. When we seek the principle of loss and gain, it has to be on similar and same plane having nexus inter se between them and not to which, there is no semblance of any corelation. Thus, the Tribunal is not justified in deducting the amount of insurance which even in the absence of accident, the claimant was entitled or out of natural death or any illness, his legal representatives are naturally entitled. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 that the Tribunal is justified in deducting the insurance amount, cannot be accepted. 21. The intention of the legislature while enacting the Motor Vehicles Act confers larger benefit on the claimants. Interpretation of such beneficiary legislature is also well settled. Whenever there are two possible inferences then, the one which observes the object of the legislature viz., beneficial to the claimant should be accepted. 22. In the present case, as already stated supra, the claimants not only entitled to the compensation arising out of the road traffic accident on different heads but they are also entitled to the benefit out of a contract between employer and employee. Therefore, no deduction on the insurance amount paid by the employer to the employee/deceased, based on contract out of the employment should not be deducted. 23. It is relevant to state at this stage, the “Pecuniary advantage” from whatever source must correlate to injury or death arising out of motor vehicle accident and does not apply to the amounts or advantages accruing to the claimant as a result of some contract or act which deceased performed in his lifetime like on account of insurance, bank deposits, shares, debentures, pensionary benefits, gratuity or grant of employment to a kin of deceased cannot be said to be outcome or result of death of deceased in a motor vehicle accident. Our view is fortified by the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Shashi Sharma and others, reported in (2016) 9 SCC 627 , in para No.15, it has held thus: 15. The principle expounded in this decision in Helen C. Rebello case that the application of general principles under the common law to estimate damages cannot be invoked for computing compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. Further, the “pecuniary advantage” from whatever source must correlate to the injury or death caused on account of motor accident. The view so taken is the correct analysis and interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939, and must apply proprio vigore to the corresponding provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This principle has been restated in the subsequent decision of the two-Judge Bench in Patricia Jean Mahajan case, to reject the argument of the Insurance Company to deduct the amount receivable by the dependants of the deceased by way of “social security compensation” and “life insurance policy”. 24. Said view also reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sebastian Lakra and Others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and another, reported in (2019) 17 SCC 465, the three Hon’ble Judges, held that, it is the amount which accrues to claimants only on account of death of deceased, deduction with respect to various amounts received by the claimants. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that this amount accrues only on account of death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident which is deductable – amounts/advantages accruing to the claimants as a result of some contract of act, which the deceased performed in his lifetime like the amount on account of insurance, bank deposits, shares, debentures, pensionary benefits, gratuity or grant of employment to a kin of deceased, which cannot be said to be outcome or result of death of deceased in a motor vehicle accident, even though these amounts may go into the hands of the claimants only after the death of the deceased. Hence, such amounts are not liable to be deducted. 25. Hence, such amounts are not liable to be deducted. 25. Admittedly, a careful perusal of Ex.P.21 - covering letter, Ex.P.22- authorization letter and Ex.P.23- letter of appointment of the deceased clearly depicts the insurance with Tata consultancy Services which was a premium for Group Life insurance Scheme borne by TCS known as policy on Group Life Insurance(GLI) on Knowmax. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is the outcome of the result or death of deceased in a motor vehicle accident. 26. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sebastiani Lakra and Ors. V National Insurance Company Ltd., and Anr. reported in AIR 2018 SC 5034 , relying upon the earlier decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court at para No.5, 6, 9, 12 and 16 held as under: “5. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) mandates that “just compensation” should be paid to the claimants. Any method of calculation of compensation which does not result in the award of “just compensation” would not be in accordance with the Act. The word “just” is of a very wide amplitude. The courts must interpret the word in a manner which meets the object of the Act, which is to give adequate and just compensation to the dependants of the deceased. One must also remember that compensation can be paid only once and not time and again. 6. The traditional view was that while assessing compensation, the Court should assess the loss of income caused to the claimants by the death of the deceased and balance it with the benefits which may have accrued on account of the death of the deceased. However, even when this traditional view was being followed, it was a well-settled position of law that the tortfeasor cannot take benefit of the munificence or gratuity of others. 9. Thereafter, similar matter came up for consideration in Vimal Kanwar v. Kishore. This Court, following Helen C. Rebello case held that the amounts received by the heirs by way of provident fund, pension and insurance cannot be termed as “pecuniary advantage” liable for deduction. This Court also held that the salary received on compassionate appointment cannot be deducted. 12. 9. Thereafter, similar matter came up for consideration in Vimal Kanwar v. Kishore. This Court, following Helen C. Rebello case held that the amounts received by the heirs by way of provident fund, pension and insurance cannot be termed as “pecuniary advantage” liable for deduction. This Court also held that the salary received on compassionate appointment cannot be deducted. 12. The law is well settled that deductions cannot be allowed from the amount of compensation either on account of insurance, or on account of pensionary benefits or gratuity or grant of employment to a kin of the deceased. The main reason is that all these amounts are earned by the deceased on account of contractual relations entered into by him with others. It cannot be said that these amounts accrued to the dependants or the legal heirs of the deceased on account of his death in a motor vehicle accident. The claimants/dependants are entitled to “just compensation” under the Motor Vehicles Act as a result of the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident. Therefore, the natural corollary is that the advantage which accrues to the estate of the deceased or to his dependants as a result of some contract or act which the deceased performed in his lifetime cannot be said to be the outcome or result of the death of the deceased even though these amounts may go into the hands of the dependants only after his death. 16. Deduction can be ordered only where the tortfeasor satisfies the court that the amount has accrued to the claimants only on account of death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident. X. CONCLUSION 27. For the reasons stated above, the point No.1 raised in the present appeal is answered in the negative holding that the tribunal is not justified in deducting the amount in a sum of Rs.17,82,336/ cannot be the income accrued out of the death of the deceased in a road accident and the impugned judgment and award passed by the tribunal deducting the insurance policy amount, which is contractual, cannot be sustained. 28. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.15,000/- to claimants No.1 to 3 towards loss of estate. 28. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.15,000/- to claimants No.1 to 3 towards loss of estate. The accident occurred on 10.02.2018 at about 10.30 a.m. The deceased was aged about 26 years and working as a Process associate and drawing a salary of Rs.27,000/- p.m. Admittedly, the claimant No.1 –mother, claimant No.2 – father and appellant No.3 – physically handicapped unmarried brother. Therefore, in view of the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of United Insurance Company Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satiwinder Kaur & Ors. Reported in 2020 SC 3076, consortium to be granted towards love and affection to the parents of the deceased, accordingly, Rs.40,000/each to the parents of the deceased is awarded towards love and affection which comes to Rs.80,000/. 29. The tribunal proceeded to award interest at the rate of 9% per annum though the insurance company has not filed any appeal, the fact remains in the present order. We declare that deduction of a sum of Rs.17,82,336/towards insurance is bad and LRs are entitled to the said amount. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the interest awarded by the tribunal is on the higher side. 30. Taking the total compensation awarded, we are of the opinion that it is just and proper to award interest at the rate of 6% per annum on Rs.17,82,336/from the date of the petition till the date of deposit instead of interest @ 9% per annum awarded by the tribunal. To that extent point No.2 is answered accordingly. As the Insurance company has deposited the award amount with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The award amount of Rs.20,86,882/with 9% interest remained undisturbed. XI. RESULT/ORDER: 31. In view of the above, we pass the following order: (i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed. (ii) The impugned Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal deducting Rs.17,82,336/- is hereby set aside. (iii) The claimants are entitled to the said amount of Rs.17,82,336/-, as well as Rs.80,000/- towards love and affection, in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal. (ii) The impugned Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal deducting Rs.17,82,336/- is hereby set aside. (iii) The claimants are entitled to the said amount of Rs.17,82,336/-, as well as Rs.80,000/- towards love and affection, in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal. (iv) The claimants are entitled for further enhanced compensation of (Rs.17,82,336 + Rs.80,000/- ) Rs.18,62,336/- with interest @ of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, in addition to Rs.20,86,862/- with 9% interest awarded by the Tribunal. Ordered accordingly.