JUDGMENT 1. - Instant appeal has been filed by the appellant Insurance Company under Section 173, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 3.3.2012 passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Gulabpura (district-Bhilwara) in M.A.C. Case No. 41/2011, by which, compensation of Rs. 5,87,600/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants against the appellant Insurance Company. 2. As per facts of the case, a claim petition was filed by respondent-claimants before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Gulabpura, in which, it is stated that in the accident occurred on 19.3.2011 when late Rajendra Singh was going on motor-cycle No. RJ-06-SC-3689 at about 2 P.M. from Amratiya to Gulabpura, his motor-cycle was hit by another motor-cycle No. RJ-06-SP-4430 coming from the opposite direction which was being driven by its driver rashly and negligently. In the said accident, deceased Rajendra Singh sustained grievous injuries and during the course of treatment in the hospital Rajendra Singh died. 3. The Claim Tribunal after considering entire facts of the case awarded Rs. 5,87,600/- along with 6% per annum. Interest to the claimants. The appellant company is challenging the said award on various grounds. 4. The main contention of the appellant Insurance Company is that the driver of offending motor-cycle Vinod Yadav was possessing learner's licence and under Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 the driver was required to be accompanied by someone possessing regular driving licence but, at the relevant time, Vinod yadav was not accompanied by anybody, however, this aspect of the matter was not considered properly by the Claim Tribunal, therefore, the appellant Insurance Company is not liable for payment of compensation because the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing valid driving licence. It is prayed that the award impugned may be quashed. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I have perused the award impugned. 6. The Claim Tribunal while deciding issue No. 3 specifically observed in the award that officer of the appellant Insurance Company NAW-2 G.P. Chhipa accepted in his statement that learning-licence which was possessed by Vinod Yadav was valid at the time of the accident, therefore, the Claim Tribunal observed in the order that in view of the admission there is no necessity to discuss any other point to ascertain whether the driver of the offending vehicle was possessing valid licence or not. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the aforesaid adjudication made by the Claim Tribunal on issue No. 3, I am of the firm opinion that no illegality has been committed in passing the award impugned in favour of the claimants. 7. Therefore, this appeal is hereby dismissed. 8. However, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the amount was not deposited as ordered by the Claim Tribunal, but, now the appellant Insurance Company may be permitted the said amount upon interest at the rate of 6% within stipulated time instead of 9%.In the interest of justice, I deem it appropriate that if the appellant Insurance Company deposits the amount of award within a period of one month from the date of receiving certified copy of the order, then, they shall pay 6% interest upon the amount of award with effect from 4.5.2011, the date on which the claim was filed. After expiry of one month the appellant company shall pay 9% interest as ordered by the Tribunal.Appeal dismissed. *******