H.I. Hussain, J. - This judgment will dispose of two appeals directed against an award passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pulwama (˜the Tribunal™) in a Claim; Petition No. 28 of 2000 titled Sarvat Kochak v. Manzoor Ahmad Khandey on 19.11.2003. 2. The matter relates to a road accident which took place on 6.11.1999 near village Chersoo situated on Srinagar Jammu National Highway. One Dr. Arshad Mirza aged about 27 years was travelling alongwith his relatives to Anantnag in his own Maruti car. When he reached near Chersoo he met with an accident which took place due to dashing of one truck bearing the registration No. JK-03 1915 with the said Maruti car. The truck was being driven by Manzoor Ahmad Khandey s/o Abdul Rehman Khandey r/o Khandeypora, Pulwama and it is alleged that he was driving the vehicle at the time of accident rashly and negligently due to which the accident took place. Said Dr. Arshad Mirza along with other passengers of the car got critically injured resulting in the instant death of Dr. Arshad Mirza. 3. Sarvat Kochak and Dr. Gh. Rasool Mirza who are the parents of deceased Dr. Arshad Mirza filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal stating therein that the deceased was of 27 years of age and had completed his MBBS degree including the house job and internship and he was their only son. Learned Tribunal framed the following issues in the case: (i) Whether on 6.11.1999 the deceased Arshad was coming from Srinagar to Anantnag by Maruti car No. DL-2C 2208 and was driving Maruti car on its correct side of road and while reaching near village Chersoo a truck No. JK-03 1915 which was driven by respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently and in this process of high speed dashed Maruti car resulting in massive accident in which the deceased and others were injured and deceased succumbed to injuries on spot. The accident is result of rash and negligent and careless driving of respondent No. 1? -OPP (ii) In case issue No. 1 is proved affirmative, to how much of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? -OPP (iii) Whether the respondent No. 1 was holding a valid driving licence on the date of occurrence? -OPR (iv) Whether the deceased was holding driving licence? -OPR (v) Relief. 4. -OPP (ii) In case issue No. 1 is proved affirmative, to how much of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? -OPP (iii) Whether the respondent No. 1 was holding a valid driving licence on the date of occurrence? -OPR (iv) Whether the deceased was holding driving licence? -OPR (v) Relief. 4. On conclusion of the proceedings the Claims Tribunal found the parents of the deceased were entitled to a compensation of Rs. 7,20,000 plus Rs. 15,000 as funeral expenses (total Rs. 7,35,000). The Claims Tribunal, however, found that at the time of accident the deceased was driving the vehicle without a valid driving licence, as such he has contributed to the accident. His act was taken as contributory negligence in this behalf and said amount was reduced by one-third. The parents of the deceased were, therefore, found entitled to a compensation in toto to Rs. 4,95,000. Claims Tribunal also directed that the compensation amount be paid within three months failing which interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum shall also be payable till the final payment is made. 5. Aggrieved by the said award/judgment both the parents of the deceased as well as the insurance company have filed separate appeals against it. The parents of the deceased Sarvat Kochak and Dr. Gh. Rasool Mirza have filed C.I.M.A. No. 29 of 2004 on the ground that the compensation amount fixed is inadequate as the Tribunal has not taken into account the earnings of the deceased as also no interest has been granted on the awarded amount 6. The insurance company has on the other hand filed appeal C.I.M.A. No. 74 Of 2004 on the ground that the Tribunal has applied a wrong multiplier and has granted higher rate of interest in default of payment of compensation amount which is not warranted by law. 7. We will first take the appeal filed by the legal heirs of the deceased. C.I.M.A. No. 29 of 2004: 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the deceased was the only son of appellants and that he had completed his MBBS degree and was a practising doctor. According to learned counsel the batchmates of the deceased are getting more than Rs. 10,000 per month and there was a positive evidence on the Tribunal™s record to show that the monthly income of the deceased too was Rs. According to learned counsel the batchmates of the deceased are getting more than Rs. 10,000 per month and there was a positive evidence on the Tribunal™s record to show that the monthly income of the deceased too was Rs. 10,000 but the Claims Tribunal has erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 5,000 only and calculating the amount of compensation on this ground. Learned counsel has further stated that the Tribunal has not granted any interest on the amount awarded and has not given any cogent reasons for the same. 9. So far as the findings of the Tribunal on the amount of compensation is concerned I find that the Tribunal has dealt with this issue in detail. The learned Tribunal has found that at the time of accident the deceased though had completed his studies including the house job and internship was not employed and that there was no specific evidence on record about his income. Tribunal has, in such circumstances, taken Rs. 5,000 as the income of the deceased which in the facts and circumstances of the case appear to be just and proper. 10. Sometimes it becomes very difficult for the parties to adduce evidence on the income of the deceased. As has been observed by Madras High Court in Ramesh v. Rajammal, 1998 AIHC 4476, almost 70 to 80 per cent of the accident case the claimants are not able to produce an evidence with regard to the income, of the deceased. Only in case of employed persons, we can expect the salary certificate or in some other cases, if he is an income tax assessee, we can expect some evidence with regard to the income of the deceased. If a person who dies in the accident is an self-employed and not an assessee, in those cases, the Tribunal as well as this court has to proceed to find out the income of the deceased on the basis of the nature of the employment of the deceased. Thus, in such cases the Tribunal has to take into consideration all the relevant circumstances like age, physical condition and status of the deceased, his educational qualification, profession and future prospects. Thus, in such cases the Tribunal has to take into consideration all the relevant circumstances like age, physical condition and status of the deceased, his educational qualification, profession and future prospects. If exact income of the deceased is not known and the nature of profession of the deceased was such as no record of such income was there, the Tribunal can, on consideration of these facts do a guesswork and arrive at a just conclusion about the income of the deceased. 11. The Tribunal has after fixing the amount of compensation due to the legal heirs of the deceased found that out of the amount one-third was deductible as at the time of the accident the deceased was himself negligent in driving the vehicle without having the valid driving licence. The Tribunal reduced the compensation amount by one-third and in this behalf observed as under: Since the deceased has been himself negligent in driving the vehicle without having valid driving licence, it can be designated as contributory negligence on his behalf and keeping that aspect in view the compensation so fixed is hereby reduced by one-third and remaining compensation payable by the respondent insurance company is, therefore, fixed at Rs. 4,80,000 plus Rs. 15,000 towards funeral expenses, in toto Rs. 4,95,000 including the interim relief which shall be payable within three months and if not paid the interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum shall be also payable till ; final payment is made.� 12. I find that the view taken by the Tribunal is not sustainable at all. Even if it is taken that the deceased was not driving the vehicle with a valid driving licence, it in my view cannot disentitle the claimants to claim compensation nor can the Tribunal reduce the amount of compensation on the basis of contributory negligence. 13. In Gujarat State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Thacker Narottam Kalyanji, 2001 ACJ 391 (Gujarat), Gujarat High Court held that merely because the deceased driver of one of the vehicles had no driving licence alone was not sufficient to burden him with contributory negligence. 13. In Gujarat State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Thacker Narottam Kalyanji, 2001 ACJ 391 (Gujarat), Gujarat High Court held that merely because the deceased driver of one of the vehicles had no driving licence alone was not sufficient to burden him with contributory negligence. A similar view was taken by Punjab and Haryana High Court in Mohinder Singh Sohal v. Ramesh Kumari 1981 ACJ 326 (P&H) and it was held that the contributory negligence was not to be presumed merely from the facts that the person driving the vehicle did not hold a driving licence. On the reasons given in the said authorities, I found myself inclined to follow the same. 14. Under these circumstance, I find that deduction of one-third of the amount done by the Tribunal is not justified. The order to that extent is set aside. 15. So far the grant of interest is concerned, in the present case the Tribunal has not granted any interest on the amount of compensation fixed by it. On the other hand, it has directed payment of the compensation amount within three months. The Tribunal has further directed that if the amount is not paid within this period interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum shall be payable till the final payment is made. 16. Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for award of interest where any claim is allowed. It provides as under: Where any Claims Tribunal allows a claim for compensation made under this Act, such Tribunal may direct that in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as it may specify in this behalf.� 17. The section empowers the Claims Tribunal to award simple interest on the compensation awarded at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as it may specify in this behalf. Interest is not awarded as damages but is awarded to the claimant only for being let out of money which ought to have been paid to him. It takes care of the period between the date of claim and the date of the final payment of the compensation. Interest is not awarded as damages but is awarded to the claimant only for being let out of money which ought to have been paid to him. It takes care of the period between the date of claim and the date of the final payment of the compensation. The power of the Tribunal to grant interest is discretionary and is to be passed properly and on due reasons both while awarding or declining interest. If the Tribunal while granting the amount finds that the party entitled to the compensation is not entitled to the interest it must record its reasons otherwise it will be deemed to have failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it. The discretion is always to be exercised on just and proper grounds for which due reasons are to be given. If the Tribunal finds1 a party entitled to the compensation amount it has to make a provision for interest on the amount from the date of the claim to the date of its realisation and if the Tribunal from the facts of a particular case finds that such party is not entitled to such interest it has to record its reasons as to why it is not allowing the interest. Failure to give reasons shows that the Tribunal has failed to exercise jurisdiction properly. From the facts and circumstances of the present case I find no circumstance which could disentitle the appellants from claiming any interest on the compensation amount. 18. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find the appellant entitled to 9 per cent interest on the awarded amount from the date of order of the Tribunal till its final realisation. 19. With these observations the Appeal No. 29 of 2004 stands disposed of. Appeal No. 74 of 2004: 20. Learned counsel for the appellants insurance company Mr. J.A. Kawoosa has vehemently argued that the Tribunal has fixed the compensation amount at higher side and has granted higher rate of interest in default. In this behalf he has relied on United India Fire & Genl Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Lakshmi Shori Ganjoo, 1982 ACJ 470 (J&K); 1999 SLJ 6; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Keshav Bahadur, 2004 ACJ 648 (SC); National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swarnlata Das, 1993 ACJ 748 (SC) and Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman lyer, 2004 ACJ 53 (SC). 21. Co. Ltd. v. Lakshmi Shori Ganjoo, 1982 ACJ 470 (J&K); 1999 SLJ 6; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Keshav Bahadur, 2004 ACJ 648 (SC); National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swarnlata Das, 1993 ACJ 748 (SC) and Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman lyer, 2004 ACJ 53 (SC). 21. In view of the provisions of sections 149 (2) and 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act and also the law laid down by the Apex Court I find that the grounds taken by the learned counsel for the appellants insurance company are not available to him to challenge the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nicolletta Rohtagi, 2002 ACJ 1950 (SC), the Apex Court held that the right of appeal is not an inherent right and as the insurance company is permitted to contest only on the grounds stated in section 149 (2) of Motor Vehicle Act the insurer cannot file an appeal on any other ground except in accordance with the procedure prescribed in section 170 the Act. The court observed: The aforesaid provisions show two aspects. Firstly, that the insurer has only statutory defences available as provided in sub-section (2) of section 149 of 1988 Act and, secondly, where the Tribunal is of the view that there is a collusion between the claimant and the insured, or the insured does not contest the claim, the insurer can be made a party and on such impleadment the insurer shall have all defences available to it. Then comes the provision of section 173 which provides for an appeal against the award given by Claims Tribunal. Under 173, any person aggrieved by an award is entitled to prefer an appeal to the High Court. Very often the question has arisen, as to whether an insurer is entitled to file an appeal on the grounds available to the insured when either there is collusion between the claimants and the insured or when the insured has not filed an appeal before the High Court: questioning the quantum of compensation. The consistent view of this court had been that the insurer has no right to file an appeal to challenge the quantum compensation or findings of the Tribunal as regards negligence or contributory negligence of the offending vehicle 22. The consistent view of this court had been that the insurer has no right to file an appeal to challenge the quantum compensation or findings of the Tribunal as regards negligence or contributory negligence of the offending vehicle 22. The view adopted in Nicolletta Rohtagi™s case, 2002 ACJ 1950 (SC), followed by Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jyotsnaben Sudhir-bhai Patel, 2003 ACJ 2107 (SC) and it was held: ...on a consideration of the relevant provisions under Motor Vehicles Act, it is plain and clear that the insurance company can contest the claim preferred before the Tribunal only on the statutory grounds prescribed under section 149 (2) of the Act, but, if there is collusion between the person making the claim and the person resisting the claim or if the person against whom the claim is made has failed to contest the claim, the insurance company can step in and seek permission of the Tribunal and make a prayer for getting itself impleaded as a party to the proceedings and the insurer so impleaded can then contest the proceeding on grounds other than the grounds enumerated in sub-section (2) of section 149 of the Act. This is an enabling provision in the event of a collusion between the claimant and the insured or the tortfeasor.� 23. In view of this finding I find that the appeal of the present appellant National Insurance Co. Ltd. is not maintainable. Even otherwise, on going through the evidence, I find that the Tribunal has given due reasons while fixing the amount of compensation. So far as the income of the deceased is concerned, it has already been observed while disposing of Appeal No. 29 of 2004 that the Tribunal has come to a just conclusion in fixing the same. It may be added here that where the deceased was an able-bodied young man, having entered the medical profession and coming from a well to do family who afforded even having his own car and amount of Rs. 5,000 as his monthly income, can in no circumstances be termed as unreasonable. I could not find any error in the findings of the Tribunal on this issue. 24. The Claims Tribunal has taken into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. The conclusion arrived are proper on evidence recorded by the Tribunal. 25. 5,000 as his monthly income, can in no circumstances be termed as unreasonable. I could not find any error in the findings of the Tribunal on this issue. 24. The Claims Tribunal has taken into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. The conclusion arrived are proper on evidence recorded by the Tribunal. 25. The appeal filed by the company is, therefore, dismissed.