( 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