JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the award, dated 24th April, 2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Kangra at Dharamshala, (for short, “the Tribunal”), in MAC Petition No.29-K/II of 2007, titled Rishivansh Sharma vs. M/s Vikas Traders and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.4,45,463/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and costs quantified at Rs.2,000/-, came to be awarded in favour of the claimant and the insurer was saddled with the liability, (for short the “impugned award”). 2. The claimant, the owner and the driver have not questioned the impugned award on any count. Thus, the same has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. The insurer has questioned the impugned award on four grounds, namely – i) the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence; ii) the insured had committed willful breach; iii) the impugned award is excessive; and iv) the interest has been awarded by the Tribunal on the higher rate. 4. In order to determine all these grounds, a reference may be made to the issues framed by the Tribunal, as under: “1. Whether the petitioner suffered injuries due to the rash and negligent driving for jeep/Tata 207 DI, HP-19-B-0101 by respondent No.2 at the relevant date, time and place? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as alleged? OPR-3 4. Whether respondent No.2 was not holding a valid and effective driving license of the vehicle involved in the accident/? OPR-3 5. Relief.” 5. There is no dispute about the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.1. Accordingly, the said findings are upheld. 6. Before issue No.2 is dealt with, I deem it proper to deal with issues No.3 and 4 at the first place. In order to prove these issues, the onus was on the insurer, has not led evidence to prove the said issues. However, I have gone through the claim petition and the reply thereto filed by the insurer. It is not established from the pleadings as to how the claim petition was bad for non-joinder or mis-joinder of necessary parties. 7. In order to prove these issues, the onus was on the insurer, has not led evidence to prove the said issues. However, I have gone through the claim petition and the reply thereto filed by the insurer. It is not established from the pleadings as to how the claim petition was bad for non-joinder or mis-joinder of necessary parties. 7. The Motor Vehicles Act has gone a sea change and sub section (6) to Section 158 and sub section (4) to Section 166 have been added, whereby the Claims Tribunal can treat any report of accident forwarded to it under Section 158 (6) as an application for compensation. Thus, it does not lie in the mouth of the insurer to plead that the Claim Petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 8. Having said so, the Tribunal has rightly decided issue No.3 and accordingly, the same is upheld. 9. Coming to issue No.4, parties have led evidence and the Tribunal, in paragraph 23 of the impugned award, has held that the driver of the offending vehicle was having licence to drive a light motor vehicle. The offending vehicle involved in the accident was a Jeep, the unladen weight of which was less than 7500 kilograms and would fall within the definition of “light motor vehicle”, as has been held by this Court in catena of judgments, i.e. FAO No.125 of 2006, titled Oriental Insurance Company vs. Shashibala and others, FAO No.312 of 2012, titled Sukhvinder Singh and another vs. The New India Assurance Ltd. and others, etc. 10. This Court in series of cases i.e. FAO No.320 of 2008, titled Dalip Kumar and another vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & another, decided on 6th June, 2014, FAO No.306 of 2012, titled Prem Singh and others vs. Dev Raj and others, decided on 18th July, 2014 and FAO No.54 of 2012, titled Mahesh Kumar and another vs. Smt.Priaro Devi and Others, decided on 25th July, 2014, has discussed the issue and held that the driver having driving licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle is not required to have endorsement of “PSV” i.e. public service vehicle. 11. 11. The Apex Court in latest decision, in Kulwant Singh and others vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2015) 2 Supreme Court Cases 186, has held that the driver who is having valid and effective driving licence to drive a Light Motor Vehicle is not required to have endorsement to drive a light commercial vehicle. It is apt to reproduce paragraphs No.10 and 11 hereunder: “10. In S. Iyyapan (supra), the question was whether the driver who had a licence to drive ‘light motor vehicle’ could drive ‘light motor vehicle’ used as a commercial vehicle, without obtaining endorsement to drive a commercial vehicle. It was held that in such a case, the Insurance Company could not disown its liability. It was observed : “18. In the instant case, admittedly the driver was holding a valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle. There is no dispute that the motor vehicle in question, by which accident took place, was Mahindra Maxi Cab. Merely because the driver did not get any endorsement in the driving licence to drive Mahindra Maxi Cab, which is a light motor vehicle, the High Court has committed grave error of law in holding that the insurer is not liable to pay compensation because the driver was not holding the licence to drive the commercial vehicle. The impugned judgment (Civil Misc. Appeal No.1016 of 2002, order dated 31.10.2008 (Mad) is, therefore, liable to be set aside.” No contrary view has been brought to our notice. 11. Accordingly, we are of the view that there was no breach of any condition of insurance policy, in the present case, entitling the Insurance Company to recovery rights.” 12. Having said so, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issues No.3 and 4 are upheld. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the insured had committed willful breach, has not led any evidence to that effect. Having said so, the insurer came to be rightly saddled with the liability. 13. My this view is fortified by the Apex Court judgment in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Swaran Singh & others, reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1531. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of para 105 of the judgment hereinbelow: “105. ..................... (i) ......................... (ii) ........................ 13. My this view is fortified by the Apex Court judgment in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Swaran Singh & others, reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1531. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of para 105 of the judgment hereinbelow: “105. ..................... (i) ......................... (ii) ........................ (iii) The breach of policy condition e.g. disqualification of driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in subsection (2) (a) (ii) of Section 149, have to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. (iv) The insurance companies are, however, with a view to avoid their liability, must not only establish the available defence(s) raised in the said proceedings; but must also establish 'breach' on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof wherefore would be on them. (v)......................... (vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards insured unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply “the rule of main purpose” and the concept of “fundamental breach” to allow defences available to the insured under Section 149 (2) of the Act.” 14. It is also profitable to reproduce para 10 of the latest judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation versus National Insurance Company, reported in (2013) 10 Supreme Court Cases 217 hereinbelow: “10. It is also profitable to reproduce para 10 of the latest judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation versus National Insurance Company, reported in (2013) 10 Supreme Court Cases 217 hereinbelow: “10. In a claim for compensation, it is certainly open to the insurer under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) to take a defence that the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident was not duly licensed. Once such a defence is taken, the onus is on the insurer. But even after it is proved that the licence possessed by the driver was a fake one, whether there is liability on the insurer is the moot question. As far as the owner of the vehicle is concerned, when he hires a driver, he has to check whether the driver has a valid driving licence. Thereafter he has to satisfy himself as to the competence of the driver. If satisfied in that regard also, it can be said that the owner had taken reasonable care in employing a person who is qualified and competent to drive the vehicle. The owner cannot be expected to go beyond that, to the extent of verifying the genuineness of the driving licence with the licensing authority before hiring the services of the driver. However, the situation would be different if at the time of insurance of the vehicle or thereafter the insurance company requires the owner of the vehicle to have the licence duly verified from the licensing authority or if the attention of the owner of the vehicle is otherwise invited to the allegation that the licence issued to the driver employed by him is a fake one and yet the owner does not take appropriate action for verification of the matter regarding the genuineness of the licence from the licensing authority. That is what is explained in Swaran ingh case. If despite such information with the owner that the licence possessed by his driver is 8 :fake, no action is taken by the insured for appropriate verification, then the insured will be at fault and, in such circumstances, the Insurance Company is not liable for the compensation.” 15. That is what is explained in Swaran ingh case. If despite such information with the owner that the licence possessed by his driver is 8 :fake, no action is taken by the insured for appropriate verification, then the insured will be at fault and, in such circumstances, the Insurance Company is not liable for the compensation.” 15. While assessing the amount of compensation, the Tribunal has discussed all aspects in paragraphs 18, 19, 20 and 21, and the amount awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in R.D. Hattangadi versus M/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & others, reported in AIR 1995 SC 755 and also in the latest judgments. On the contrary, it appears that the amount awarded is meager. However, the claimant has not questioned he impugned award. Accordingly, the compensation awarded is reluctantly upheld. 16. Coming to the last ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the rate of interest is on the higher side. As per the prevalent interest rates, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal appears to be on the higher side. Accordingly, the rate of interest is reduced from 9% to 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 17. In view of the above discussion, the claimant is awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.4,45,463/- and costs quantified at Rs.2,000/-, as awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the Claim Petition till realization. The impugned award stands modified, as indicated above. 18. The Registry is directed to release the amount in favour of the claimant, after proper identification and the excess amount, if any, deposited by the insurer be refunded to the insurer through payee’s account cheque. 19. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.