JUDGMENT 1. - This is a misc. appeal filed by owner of vehicle under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short called "the Act") against an award, dated 20.12.1997, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nimbahera in Claim Case No.22/94. 2. By impugned award, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition of claimants filed under Section 166 of the Act and in consequence awarded to claimants a total compensation of Rs. 92,400/- along with interest @ 2% i.e. 24% per annum for the death of one person by name "Teru", who died in vehicular accident. However, while passing the award, the Tribunal exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability on the ground that driver of offending vehicle was not holding any license, rather was holding fake license. 3. So the question arises for consideration in this appeal is whether any case is made out for reversing the factual finding recorded by Tribunal. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record of the case, I am inclined to dismiss the appeal. 5. Coming first to the issue relating to liability of Insurance Company, in my view, the Tribunal is right. It is a case where admittedly the driver of offending vehicle which caused death to Teru was not having any license or was holding a fake one. It is proved by evidence and it was rightly relied on by the Tribunal for recording finding on this issue against the claimant/owner and in favour of Insurance Company. I find absolutely no reason to differ with the finding so recorded by the Tribunal on this issue. This issue is also decided in many cases by the Supreme Court and in particular in the case of Swarn Singh and later in other cases, wherein the Company was not held liable to suffer the award. In the light of undisputed facts brought on record and keeping in view the law on the subject, I find no good ground to reverse the finding of Tribunal on this issue and while upholding the finding reject, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant in relation to liability of Insurance Company arising out of accident. 6. Coming now to the issue relating to the nature of accident, negligence and death of Teru, the same is beyond challenge. Indeed they were not questioned much less with any seriousness. 6. Coming now to the issue relating to the nature of accident, negligence and death of Teru, the same is beyond challenge. Indeed they were not questioned much less with any seriousness. Had it been done, even then, I would have repelled the submission because it has no merit whatsoever. I have also taken note of the factual aspects and find no merit therein. Teru a middle aged man died in vehicular accident. A sum of Rs. 92,400/- awarded cannot be on higher side. Rather it is on lower one. 7. Coming now to the issue relating to award of interest. True it is that it is on higher side (2%) yet since in totality, the awarded sum is on lower side ( Rs. 92,400/-) and no cross-objection or/ appeal is filed by claimants to claim higher sum. I am not inclined to interfere in the case of award of interest and its rate. In other cases probably, a case for interference would have been made out but since the main award of compensation itself is on lower side even in 1993, the claimant is duly compensated by awarding to them higher rate of interest on the awarded sum. After all, just compensation can always be awarded to the claimants and hence if claimants are awarded less compensation in one head and more in other then eventual compensation works out to be the just one. This is what has happened in this case and hence it is upheld on facts. 8. In view of foregoing discussion and taking over all view of the matter, I find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. 9. No cost.Appeal Dismissed. *******