V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.

1. This appeal filed by the insurance company arises out of an award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.

2. Heard Mr. J. Chandran, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S. Kaithamalai Kumaran, learned counsel for the contesting respondents, who are the claimants.

3. In a road traffic accident that happened on 6.10.2002, one Mr. Paramasivam died, leaving behind him surviving his wife, who is the first respondent in the appeal, three minor children, who are the respondents 2 to 4 herein and his mother, who is the fifth respondent herein. The respondents 1 to 5 herein filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No. 740 of 2002 claiming compensation in a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs on the basis that the deceased was aged 40 years at the time of accident and was earning a monthly income of Rs. 15,000/- through a business run by him.

4. It appears that the claim petition was dismissed for non prosecution on 25.9.2003 and it came to be restored in the year 2009 after a delay of about 1800 days. Thereafter, the first respondent herein examined herself as P.W.1. The Village Administrative Officer was examined as P.W.4. 13 documents were marked on the side of the claimants.

5. The Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased as 38 on the basis of the post mortem certificate. The Tribunal arrived at the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 7,500/- and fixed the amount that he would have spent on the family at Rs. 5,000/-. The Tribunal applied a multiplier of 16. Thereafter, the Tribunal fixed the compensation at Rs. 10,27,000/-.

6. The main contentions of Mr. J. Chandran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant are as follows :

(i) that after the claimants indicated the age of the deceased as 40, the Tribunal committed an error in fixing the age as 38 merely on the basis of the post mortem certificate

(ii) that the Tribunal erred in fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 7,500/- and

(iii) that the insurance company cannot be mulcted with the liability to pay interest at 7.5% per annum during the period when the claim petition was allowed to be dismissed for default.

7. We have carefully considered the above submissions.

8. In so far as the second contention is concerned, we do not think that the Tribunal committed an error in fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 7,500/-. The claimants claimed that he was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. The claimants produced Ex.P.9 patta, which stood in his name. They also relied upon the certificate of the Village Administrative Officer - Ex.P.13 to the effect that he was earning Rs. 20,000/- from his grocery shop. Ex.P.11 was a certificate showing that the deceased had paid Rs. 25,000/- as tax towards his grocery shop. Therefore, we find nothing wrong in the Tribunal fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 7,500/- and taking Rs. 5,000/- as the amount that he would have spent on his family. Hence, the second ground of attack to the award of the Tribunal is rejected.

9. The third ground of attack to the award of the Tribunal is that the Tribunal could not have mulcted the insurance company with the liability to pay interest for a period of 6 years, which was the period during which, the claim was dismissed for default.

10. Legally, the said contention is well founded. If the claimants had been negligent in allowing the claim petition to be dismissed for non prosecution and if they failed to have it restored within time, the insurance company cannot be penalised in the form of interest. But, in the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not think that the third contention should be upheld.

11. In this case, the death of the victim was at the age of 40, even if we go by the statement contained in the claim petition. The fact that he left three minor children at the time of death is not disputed. Payment of interest is not always on the basis that somebody was deprived of payment of legitimate dues. Payment of interest is also to compensate for retention of