( 1 ) BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied by the award in M. A. C. Petitions Nos. 473 494 523 503 495 496 and 497 of 1983 the Insurance Company has filed the aforesaid First Appeals.

( 2 ) IT is the contention of the Insurance Company that the claimants were sitting in the truck passengers and they were not standing on the road as contended by them when the truck turned turtle. For this there is no evidence on record. On the contrary the injured claimants have in terms stated that they were standing on the road and because of the truck turning turtle they were injured. This evidence was appreciated by the Tribunal in paragraphs 59 60 and 61. There is no other contrary evidence. In our view therefore it cannot be said that the finding of the Tribunal is in any way erroneous which calls for interference in appeal. The learned advocate for the appellant further contended that the Tribunal ought not to have awarded penal interest of 12%. As against this the learned advocate for the claimants has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sukhbinder Kaur v. Nirmolak Singh (1982) 2 Supreme Court Cases 348 where also the Court has awarded 12% interest. In our opinion in this case there is no question of awarding any penal interest by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has only given direction that if the amount is deposited within the specified time then the interest would be 6%. But if the amount of the award is not paid within the period of three months then after that date the rate of interest shall be 12% from the date of the award. In our view taking into consideration the prevalent rate of interest it cannot be said that the interest awarded by a the Tribunal is in any way excessive which calls for interference in appeal by the Insurance Company. Hence the appeals are dismissed.

( 3 ) AFTER the aforesaid order was passed by us yesterday Mr. Thakore appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 1592 of 1985 decided on 26-12-85 has held that the Court has no jurisdiction to award penal interest. In our view in the present case there is no question of awarding any penal interest. The Tribunal has directed by its order that from the date of the application the claimants will be entitled to have compensation with interest at 6% till realisation with proportionate costs thereon. If the amount of award is paid within the period of three months after the date of the award that the rate of interest would be at 6% from the date of the award. But if the said amount is not deposited within the stipulated time then the interest rate would be 15 from the-date of the award. In the aforesaid First Appeal decided by the Division Bench the Court has passed an order that if the amount is not deposited within the stipulated time then from the date of the application the claimants would be entitled to recover 12% interest. In that set of circumstances the Court held that it amounts to penal interest. It should he noted that before the Division Bench sec. 110-CC and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sukhbinder v. Nirmolak Singh (1982) 2 Supreme Court Cases 348 were not cited. In the case before the Division Bench the Court has not laid down the law that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cannot pass an order for rate of interest at 12% on the amount awarded by it.

( 4 ) FURTHER sec. 110 CC of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the Court or the Claims Tribunal to award simple interest at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as it may specify in this behalf at the time of passing the award in addition to the amount of compensation. There is no prohibition under this section that the Tribunal shall not award interest at the rate more than 6%. This section gives discretion to the Tribunal to award interest at reasonable rate on the amount awarded after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each case. Theref