JUDGMENT 1. 1. This Special Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 17.2.98, whereby the learned Judge while confirming the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chittorgarh dated 23.12.94 modified to the extent that the Insurance Company shall be liable for the payment of compensation. 2. In this Special Appeal, filed by the Insurance Company, it is contended that the learned Single Judge has committed error in holding that the burden was on the Insurance Company to establish that the vehicle was being driven by unlicensed and unauthorised person. As far as this aspect of to the case is concerned, it is no more res integra that the burden to prove that the vehicle was being driven by the unauthorised person lay on the Insurance Company and it has to be discharged by it. Reference was made to the decision of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sushila Devi Sharma & Ors., 1981 ACJ 119 , Abdul Zabbar v. Ram Swaroop & Ors. 1985 ACJ 594 , Shankerlal v. Shankerlal & Others, ACT 866 , Rajasthan State Co-op. Dairy Federation v. Brij Mohan Lal & Ors., 1990 ACJ 118 and Rukamani & Ors. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 1998(9) SCC 160 . (3) It is next contended that as the accident is of prior to the amendment and as such the liability of the Insurance Company is only to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-. 3. Mr. B.L. Maheshwari has placed on record a copy of the Insurance Policy and pointed out that the extra premium of Rs. 240/- was paid to the Insurance Company and as such the liability of the Insurance Company is unlimited. The learned counsel in that regard has also placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Navyug Oil & Dail Mills v. Smt. Nathi Devi & Ors. 1999 WLC (Raj.) UC 312 , wherein this Court has held that where extra premium is paid for liability of the third party public risk, the liability of the Insurance Company is unlimited and liable to pay whole compensation. In view of this, the second contention raised by the Insurance Company also fails. 4. It is contended by Mr. 1999 WLC (Raj.) UC 312 , wherein this Court has held that where extra premium is paid for liability of the third party public risk, the liability of the Insurance Company is unlimited and liable to pay whole compensation. In view of this, the second contention raised by the Insurance Company also fails. 4. It is contended by Mr. Saruparia, learned counsel appearing for the claimant that the Tribunal has awarded interest only @ 6 per cent and as such it should be enhanced to 12 per cent. The Tribunal in its discretion has awarded interest @ 6 per cent. We are not inclined to interfere with the same. 5. In view of the aforesaid, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is therefore rejected. 6. In view of the order of this Court dated 3.4.98 and 14.9.98, the Insurance Company alongwith the applications dated 28.6.99 and 16.8.99 submitted a cheque of the State Bank of India dated 14.6.99 for a sum of Rs. 82,000 and cheque of the State Bank of India dated 13.8.99 for a sum of Rs. 1,25,904/- respectively. However, a controversy was raised that the entire amount has not been deposited as per the directions of this Court. Thus, the cheques could not be deposited with the bank. It is therefore, directed that both the cheques may now be returned to the Insurance Company. As cheques were not en cashed, the claimant shall be entitled of the interest for the said period.Appeal dismissed. *******