JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. FAO No.104 of 2011: This appeal is directed against the award, dated 30th October, 2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chamba, H.P., (for short, the Tribunal), in Claim Petition No.35 of 2009, titled Lipo and another vs. Bajaj Allianz, General Insurance Company Ltd. and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.5,70,000/-, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till the payment is made, came to be awarded in favour of the claimants, and the insurer was saddled with the liability. In addition, Rs.10,000/- were also awarded as costs. FAO No.105 of 2011: 2. By the medium of this appeal, the appellant has questioned the award, dated 30th October, 2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chamba, H.P., (for short, the Tribunal), in Claim Petition No.32 of 2009, titled Lipo and another vs. Bajaj Allianz, General Insurance Company Ltd. and others, whereby the claimants were held entitled to Rs.2,82,000/- as compensation, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till the payment, and the insurer came to be saddled with the liability. Apart from it, claimants were also awarded Rs.10,000/- as costs. 3. For the sake of brevity, both the awards are referred to as the impugned awards hereinafter. 4. The claimants, the owner and the driver, being satisfied with the impugned awards, have not questioned the same on any count, thus the same have attained finality relating to them. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the insurer has challenged the impugned awards by the medium of these appeals. Since the genesis of both the appeals is one accident, therefore, the same are taken up together for final disposal and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurer has argued that the impugned awards are vitiated and do not stand the scrutiny of law for the reason that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and driving licnece on the date of accident. It was also argued that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal, in both the awards, is excessive. It was also argued that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal, in both the awards, is excessive. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 35 of 2009, (subject matter of FAO No. 104 of 2011), has fallen in error in not deducting 1/3rd amount from the monthly income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, while computing the loss of source of dependency. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the impugned awards are well reasoned, need no interference. 8. From the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, following points emerge for determination: i. Whether the driver was having a valid and effective driving licence? ii. Whether the interest awarded by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law? iii. Whether the Tribunal has fallen in error in not deducting 1/3rd amount from the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses in Claim Petition 35 of 2009, (subject matter of FAO No.104 of 2011)? 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 10. Admittedly, the offending vehicle was duly insured at the time of accident and the driver was having a valid and effective driving licence to drive a Light Motor Vehicle. I have examined the copy of the driving licence, which is on the file, a perusal whereof shows that the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The Tribunal has rightly made discussion in paragraph 20 of the impugned award while deciding issue No.4, (FAO No.104 of 2011), which findings are liable to be upheld. 11. Coming to the second point, the interest at the rate of 12% per annum is excessive and deserves to be reduced in view of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in cases titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others versus Patricia Jean Mahajan and others, reported in (2002) 6 SCC 281 ; Santosh Devi versus National Insurance Company Ltd. and others, reported in 2012 AIR SCW 2892; Amrit Bhanu Shali and others versus National Insurance Company Limited and others, reported in (2012) 11 SCC 738 ; Smt. Savita versus Binder Singh & others, reported in 2014 AIR SCW 2053; Kalpanaraj & Ors. versus Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpn., reported in 2014 AIR SCW 2982; Amresh Kumari versus Niranjan Lal Jagdish Pd. Jain and others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 433 , and Mohinder Kaur and others versus Hira Nand Sindhi (Ghoriwala) and another, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 434 , and discussed by this Court in a batch of FAOs, FAO No. 256 of 2010, titled as Oriental Insurance Company versus Smt. Indiro and others, being the lead case, decided on 19.06.2015. 12. Accordingly, it is held that the amount of compensation, in both the Claim Petitions, shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 13. As far as the third and the last point is concerned, it is held that the Tribunal has fallen into an error, while making the award impugned in FAO No. 104 of 2011, in not deducting any amount towards the personal expenses of the deceased. The Tribunal, after referring to the pleadings and the evidence, has rightly held that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. After deducting 1/3rd amount towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the monthly loss of source of dependency to the claimants can be said to be Rs.3,334/- or roughly say Rs.4000/-. 14. No other point was urged. Accordingly, the multiplier of 8 is maintained. 15. In view of the above, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.4000 x 12 x 8 = Rs.3,84,000/- in Claim Petition No. 35 of 2009 (subject matter of FAO No. 104 of 2011). The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads, including costs, is upheld. 16. Having said so, the award impugned in FAO No. 104 of 2011 is modified as indicated above and the impugned award in FAO No. 105 of 2011 is upheld. 17. The Registry is directed to release the compensation amount in favour of the claimants alongwith interest as awarded above forthwith through their respective bank accounts or through FDRs, strictly in terms of the impugned awards, and the excess amount, if any, be paid to the insurer through payee’s account cheque. Both the appeals alongwith CMPs are disposed of accordingly.