ORDER : 1. Delay Condoned 2. Leave granted. 3. The limited grievance raised by the appellant in the present appeal is that though the High Court had enhanced the amount awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal 1 [For short the ‘Tribunal’], Chennai vide award dated 22nd July, 2005 from Rs.1,09,598/-(Rupees One Lakh Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Eight) to Rs.6,80,000/-(Rupees Six Lakhs and Eighty Thousand), noting that the court fee affixed by the appellant on the appeal was proportionately valued at Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs), the amount awarded was reduced from Rs.6,80,000/-(Rupees Six Lakhs and Eighty Thousand) to Rs.4,09,598/-(Rupees Four Lakhs Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Eight). 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the High Court has erred in not awarding the entire sum of Rs.6,80,000/-(Rupees Six Lakhs and Eighty Thousand) in favour of the appellant. The appellant could have always been called upon to make up the difference in the court fee instead of restricting the value of the appeal to Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs). 5. We are inclined to agree with the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant. There was no occasion for the High Court to first award a sum of Rs.6,80,000/-(Rupees Six Lakhs and Eighty Thousand) and then scale that amount down to Rs.4,09,598/-(Rupees Four Lakhs Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Eight) merely on the ground that the court fee on the appeal paperbook was short. Difference in the court fee could always have been made up on a direction issued to the appellant. Even otherwise, the deficiency in the court fee is an issue between the appellant and the Court and cannot be treated as a ground for scaling down the compensation payable to a party under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment reducing the amount awarded to the appellant from Rs.6,80,000/-(Rupees Six Lakhs and Eighty Thousand) to Rs.4,09,598/-(Rupees Four Lakhs Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Eight) is not sustainable. It is held that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.6,80,000/-(Rupees Six Lakhs and Eighty Thousand), as assessed along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. The shortfall in the court fee paid shall be made good within four weeks. 7. It is held that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.6,80,000/-(Rupees Six Lakhs and Eighty Thousand), as assessed along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. The shortfall in the court fee paid shall be made good within four weeks. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 – Insurance Company states that the amount as awarded under the impugned judgment has already been paid to the appellant. The balance principal amount shall be released in favour of the appellant along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till 01st September, 2014 and thereafter, from the date of filing the present appeal till the amount is deposited before the Tribunal. 8. The appeal is allowed on the aforesaid terms while leaving the parties to bear their own expenses.