JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 30.3.2011, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II Solan, H.P., in MAC Petition No. 12-NL/2 of 2008, titled Smt. Sarvitari Devi versus H.R.T.C. and others, for short “the Tribunal”, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.4,10,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum, came to be awarded in favour of the claimant, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”, for short. 2. Claimant has filed claim petition before the Tribunal for the grant of compensation, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition which was resisted and contested by the respondents and following issues came to be framed. (i) Whether the death of Sanjeev Sharma was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the respondent No.3, as alleged? OPP. (ii) If issue no. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation if so, the amount thereof? OPP (iii) Whether the respondents 1 to 3 are responsible to make payment of the amount as alleged? OPP. (iv) Relief. 4. Claimant has examined three witnesses and driver Pyar Singh stepped into the witness-box as RW1. Appellants/HRTC have examined Rajinder Kumar as RW2. 5. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence held that the driver has driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently. The FIR was lodged against the driver and after making deductions in paras 9 to 12 held that the accident was outcome of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the HRTC. 6. I have gone through the pleadings and the findings recorded. The Tribunal has rightly came to the conclusion that the driver has driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently. It is apt to record herein that the findings recorded by the Tribunal against driver have not been questioned by the driver. Thus, it cannot lie in the mouth of the owner that the driver was not rash and negligent. Thus, the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 are upheld. 7. Issues No. 2 and 3 are interconnected hence, I deem it proper to determine both these issues together. 8. The deceased was 22 years old, was working as a teacher in Sunrise Public School, Baruna and was earning Rs.5000/- per month. Thus, the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 are upheld. 7. Issues No. 2 and 3 are interconnected hence, I deem it proper to determine both these issues together. 8. The deceased was 22 years old, was working as a teacher in Sunrise Public School, Baruna and was earning Rs.5000/- per month. The claimant has proved the said fact and also placed on record the certificate of Bachelor of Physical Education Ext. PW3/C. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly held that the income of the deceased was Rs.5000/- per month and applied the multiplier accordingly. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly awarded an amount of Rs.4,10,00/- as compensation, but has fallen in an error in granting 9% interest. Only 7.5% interest was to be granted. 9. It is a beaten law of the land that the rate of interest should be awarded as per the prevailing rates, 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 ; Satosh 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 & others 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. 10. Appellant-HRTC is directed to deposit the amount within eight weeks from today. On deposit, the Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimant, through payees’ cheque account or by depositing the same in her bank account, strictly in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award. Excess amount, if any, be released to the appellants, through payees’ cheque account. 11. Viewed thus, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award is modified, as indicated hereinabove. 12. Excess amount, if any, be released to the appellants, through payees’ cheque account. 11. Viewed thus, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award is modified, as indicated hereinabove. 12. Send down the record forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.