JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order, dated 1st January, 2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, District Solan, H.P., (for short, “the Tribunal”) in MAC Petition No. 39-NL/2 of 2002, titled Himachal Road Transport Corporation vs. Shri Chattar Sain Rice Mills & others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.85,987/-, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and costs to the tune of Rs.10,000/-, came to be awarded in favour of the claimant and the insurer was saddled with the liability with right of recovery (for short the “impugned award”). 2. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer argued that the vehicle of the claimant (respondent No.1 herein) was damaged in the accident caused by the Truck bearing registration No.PAT-8270, which was insured with the appellant. He further argued that the Tribunal has fallen into an error in granting Rs.39,000/- under the head “loss occurred on account of non plying the bus” i.e. for loss of business and Rs.15,700/- under the head “harassment caused”. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. The Tribunal has fallen into an error in awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.39,000/- under the head ‘loss of business’. The Tribunal has no power and jurisdiction to determine such claims. Thus, on this count alone, compensation granted under the head ‘loss of business’ merits to be set aside and is set aside accordingly. 5. It is a fact that the claimant-Corporation has suffered due to the alleged accident. Therefore, I deem it proper to maintain the compensation to the tune of Rs.15,700/- under the head ‘pain and sufferings’. 6. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum, which is not in accordance with the prevailing rates. It is 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. 6. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum, which is not in accordance with the prevailing rates. It is 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 ; 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 & 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. 7. Having said so, I deem it proper to reduce the rate of interest from 12% per annum to 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 8. The next question is- whether the right of recovery has been rightly granted to the insurer? 9. The owner-insured and the driver have filed cross-objections on the ground that ex-parte proceedings were drawn against them illegally. 10. It is apt to record herein that the controversy involved in the appeal and the cross objections revolves around the validity of the driving licence. This Court vide order dated 20.5.2016 directed the Licensing Authority-cum-Regional Transport Authority, Ambala to submit a report regarding the renewal of the driving licence in question. The said Authority submitted its report, which was made part of the file vide order dated 29.7.2016. 11. From a perusal of the said report, one comes to inescapable conclusion that the driving licence of the offending vehicle was valid and effective at the relevant point of time. 12. The said Authority submitted its report, which was made part of the file vide order dated 29.7.2016. 11. From a perusal of the said report, one comes to inescapable conclusion that the driving licence of the offending vehicle was valid and effective at the relevant point of time. 12. The Tribunal has held that the owner-insured has committed willful breach on the ground that the driver is not holding a valid and effective driving licence. 13. In view of the above, there is sufficient material on record to hold that the owner has not committed any willful breach. Accordingly, it is held that the insurer has to satisfy the impugned award. 14. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified, as indicated above and the appeal is disposed of. 15. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.