Judgment R.S. Chauhan, J.-While walking in the evening, on 25.04.1991, Nanak @ Nangu was hit by truck. Consequently, he expired on the spot. His mother, wife and daughters filed a claim petition before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bharatpur (for short “the Tribunal”) and prayed for compensation of Rs. 10,80,000/-. 2. In order to substantiate their case, the claimants produced three witnesses and three documents. The Insurance Company examined one witness and submitted one document for substantiating its contention. The learned Tribunal framed six issues. However, vide award dated 20.11.1993, the learned Tribunal passed an award for Rs. 4,40,000/-in favour of the claimants. 3. Being aggrieved by the said award, the appellant, the National Insurance Company, has filed the present appeal before us. Shri Ram Singh Bhati, learned Counsel for Insurance Company, has raised three contentions: firstly, at the time of the alleged accident, the truck was carrying about 20 to 25 passengers. Therefore, the owner of the truck had committed a breach of policy. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner. Secondly, the learned Tribunal has miscalculated income of the deceased person. Therefore, the very basis of the compensation is misplaced. Thirdly, the learned Tribunal does not have the power to impose a penal interest. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has committed an error when it directed that the penal interest of 18% shall be payable in case the compensation is not paid within a period of 30 days. 4. On the other hand, Shri Rajesh Parasar, learned Counsel for the claimants, the respondents No. 1, 3 and 4, has contended that the Insurance Company has not submitted any evidence to show that the income of the deceased was less than Rs. 60/-per day. Therefore, the contention raised by the appellant is baseless. 5. Shri Navin Dhunwa, learned Counsel for the respondents No. 5 and 6, the owner and the driver, respectively, has contended that the Insurance Company has not submitted any evidence to show that there is a breach of Insurance Policy committed by the owner. According to him, the burden of proof lies on the Insurance Company to clearly establish that the owner has committed a breach of policy. The Insurance Company has failed to discharge the said burden. 6. According to him, the burden of proof lies on the Insurance Company to clearly establish that the owner has committed a breach of policy. The Insurance Company has failed to discharge the said burden. 6. We have not only given our anxious consideration to the contention raised by the learned Counsel, but have also critically analysed the impugned award. 7. According to the Honble Supreme Court, it is for the Insurance Company to prove that the owner of the vehicle has committed breach of policy (Ref . to National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh & Ors., 2004 ACJ 1. Thus, the burden lies on the Insurance Company to prove the breach. In order to discharge its burden, the Insurance Company examined Shri Devdutt Purohit as an NAW-1. However, the witness nowhere said in his testimony that there is any breach of policy committed by the owner. In fact, in his examination-in-chief , he says that the policy was issued in the name of Phool Singh, the owner of the truck. In his cross-examination he states that in case a pedestrian is hit by a truck, then the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. Hence, the contention of the Insurance Company that there has been a breach of the policy is not substantiated by its own witnesses. The Insurance Company has not discharged the burden of proof . Thus, the contention raised by the Appellants Counsel is totally baseless. 8. In order to prove the income of the deceased the claimant No. 2, the mother, has examined herself and AW No. 2 Bhagwan Singh has also been examined. Smt. Prem clearly states in her examination-in-chief that the deceased was earning Rs. 60/-per day at the brick kiln out of which he was spending Rs. 10/-on himself and would given Rs. 50/-per day to the family. AW No. 2, Bhagwan Singh, states in his cross-examination that both the deceased and he were working in the same brick kiln where they were earning Rs. 60/-per day. The Insurance Company has not been able to demolish the testimony of these two witnesses in the cross-examination. Therefore, there is no reason why their testimony should not be accepted about the income of the deceased. Hence, the learned Tribunal has correctly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 60/-per day. 60/-per day. The Insurance Company has not been able to demolish the testimony of these two witnesses in the cross-examination. Therefore, there is no reason why their testimony should not be accepted about the income of the deceased. Hence, the learned Tribunal has correctly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 60/-per day. Thus, the second contention raised by the Counsel for appellant is also meritless. 9. In case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Keshav Bahadur & Ors., 2004 (1) WLC (SC) 406, the Honble Supreme Court examined the issue whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has the power to impose a penal interest or not. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held as under: - “Though Section 110 CC of the Act (corresponding to Section 171 of the New Act) confers a discretion on the Tribunal to award interest, the same is meant to be exercised in cases where the claimant can claim the same as a matter of right. In the above background, it is to be judged whether a stipulation for higher rate of interest in case of default can be imposed by the Tribunal. Once the discretion has been exercised by the Tribunal to award simply interest on the amount of compensation to be awarded at a particular rate and from a particular date, there is no scope for retrospective enhancement for default in payment of compensation. No express or implied power in this regard can be culled out from Section 110 CC of the Act or Section 171 of the new Act. Such a discretion in the award for retrospective enhancement of interest for default in payment of the compensation together with interest payable thereon virtually amounts to imposition of penalty which is not statutorily envisaged and prescribed.” 10. Thus, according to the Honble Supreme Court, the learned Tribunal did not have the power to impose a penal interest of 18% p.a. on the Insurance Company. Hence, the learned Tribunal has committed an error in imposing the penal interest on the owner and the Insurance Company. 11. As a result of the above, discussion we partly allow the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. While upholding the amount of compensation of Rs. Hence, the learned Tribunal has committed an error in imposing the penal interest on the owner and the Insurance Company. 11. As a result of the above, discussion we partly allow the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. While upholding the amount of compensation of Rs. 4,40,000/-we direct that the said amount should be paid only @ 15% interest per annum and not @ 18% p.a. Since, the case has been pending before this Court for over a decade, the amount due to the claimants should be released immediately to them.