Compensation reduced to ₹26 lakh with interest at 6% per annum.

The insurer appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Tribunal’s award of ₹31,56,000 with 7% annual interest to Respondents 1 and 2.

It challenged the quantum and rate of interest.

The Tribunal had also granted the insurer a right to recover the compensation from Respondent 3, the vehicle owner.

Respondent 3 questioned that recovery direction in the appeal, but had filed neither a separate appeal nor a cross-objection

Whether the compensation and interest awarded by the Tribunal should be reduced

Whether the Tribunal’s grant of a right of recovery to the insurer against Respondent 3 should be disturbed

The appeal was brought under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

The Court relied on *Taslim Parvin & Another v. (Smt.) Usha Devi & Another*, 2018(2) TAC 22 (SC), as guidance in determining the appropriate compensation and interest in the circumstances of the case

The judgment does not identify a further statutory formula or legal test for reassessing quantum or interest.

It also treated the Tribunal’s recovery direction as unexceptionable where Respondent 3 had not appealed or cross-objected and had not established his pleading by cogent evidence

The Court noted that Respondent 3 had not challenged the recovery direction by appeal or cross-objection and had not produced cogent evidence before the Tribunal; it therefore affirmed the insurer’s right of recovery

On quantum and interest, after a consensus-seeking exercise, the claimants accepted the Court’s proposal of ₹26,00,000 with 6% annual interest from the date the claim application was filed, and the insurer left the matter to the Court’s discretion.

Relying on *Taslim Parvin*, the Court found that this modification would serve the interests of justice

The insurer was directed to pay the modified amount within eight weeks; the Tribunal’s direction permitting recovery from Respondent 3 was affirmed.

Upon proof of deposit of the modified compensation before the Tribunal, the statutory deposit and accrued interest were to be refunded