( 1 ) THIS Appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Kachchh at Bhuj in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 37 of 1999 dated 30-09-2000. Claimants filed petition for claiming compensation for the death of Kantilal Dayaram Rajgor on 20-01-1999 while going from Anjar to Sura in truck no. GH-12-U-6684 as driver. He was driving the truck on the left side of the road with moderate and controllable Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?re orters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?reporters of Local apers may be allowed to see the Judgment?reporters of Local Papers may be all wed to see the Judgment?reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the J dgment?reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?reporter of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?reporters of Local Papers may be allowed t see the Judgment?reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgmen ?reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?reporters of L cal Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?reporters of Local Papers may b allowed to see the Judgment?reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see he Judgment?reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?rep rters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?reporters of Local P pers may b speed. Around 1 km. away from Bachau on Bachau- Samakhiyali road, opponent-1 in the employment of opponent-2 came from opposite direction driving truck no. GJ-12-V-6442 rashly, recklessly and negligently at excessive speed without observing rules of the road and collided with truck no. GJ-12-U-6684. Deceased sustained serious injuries and died on the spot. Accordingly, the death of the deceased is the direct result of sheer negligence of the opponent-1 (driver) and opponent-2 owning the truck no. GH-12-U-6442. This vehicle was insured with opponent-3. Claimants further state that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 6000/- per month, therefore, compensation of Rs. 7,72,500/- is claimed from the opponents jointly and severally impleading the owner and the Insurance Company of the other vehicle also. Objections were filed by the opponents. Thereafter, award under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act) has been passed. Apart from application under Section 163-A of the Act, claimants had also filed application under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs. 10 lacs. While examining this matter, counsel for the claimants submitted that he would like to pursue and claim compensation awarded under Section 163-A of the Act and withdraw the application filed before the Claims Tribunal under Section 166 of the Act. Accordingly, this application has been withdrawn, therefore, matter for consideration in this Appeal is whether this order is legally sustainable as to claimants claiming compensation, quantum of compensation and interest awarded by the Tribunal.

( 2 ) MS Lilu K. Bhaya, learned counsel for the appellant contended that claimants are not entitled to compensation, being brothers son and brothers wife, therefore, the award should be set aside. Further submission is that assessment of compensation is not proper since there is no evidence for coming to the conclusion that deceased was earning Rs. 2500/- per month and he was driver of the vehicle in question. The last submission is that interest awarded @ 12% per annum is excessive, therefore, it should be reduced to 9% per annum.

( 3 ) SHRI Shah, learned counsel for the claimants, submits otherwise. He submits that the Act is a benevolent legislation, which calls for legal and broad interpretation so that the real purpose of the enactment is achieved and full effect is given to the legislative intent. The purpose of legislation is to benefit the claimants against tort feasers. Action benef