JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the award, dated 10th October, 2011, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., (for short, the Tribunal), whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.1,81,600/-, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till deposit, came to be awarded in favour of the claimant, and the insurer was saddled with the liability, (for short, the impugned award). 2. The claimants, the driver and the owner have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, the same has attained finality so far as it relates to them. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the insurer has challenged the impugned award by way of instant appeal, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurer argued that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence, on the date of accident. Therefore, it was submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly saddled the insurer with the liability. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned award for the reasons given therein. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. From the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the dispute revolves around issue No.3 which is reproduced below:- “3. Whether respondent No.2 was not having a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident? OPR-3” 7. The Tribunal, while determining the said issue, has recorded in paragraph 40 of the impugned award that the driver was having a valid driving license to drive the offending vehicle, i.e. tractor. Driving licence has been proved as Ext.R-3, a perusal of which makes it abundantly clear that the driver of the offending vehicle was competent to drive Light Motor Vehicle. The offending vehicle i.e. tractor, in terms of Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, (for short, the Act), comes under the definition of “light motor vehicle”. 8. A perusal of the driving licence Ext.R-3 further discloses that it was valid and effective from 1st April, 1999 to 31st March, 2002, was to be renewed from 1st April, 2002. However, the driving licence came to be renewed on and with effect from 27th November, 2002. 8. A perusal of the driving licence Ext.R-3 further discloses that it was valid and effective from 1st April, 1999 to 31st March, 2002, was to be renewed from 1st April, 2002. However, the driving licence came to be renewed on and with effect from 27th November, 2002. The accident had taken place on 22nd November, 2002, meaning thereby that the driving licence was not valid and effective at the time of accident and was got renewed afterwards. 9. The Apex Court in Ram Babu Tiwari vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2008 AIR SCW 6512, has held that the licence is not valid in case it was not renewed on the date of its expiry and renewed from a subsequent date. It is apt to reproduce paragraphs 13 and 19 of the said decision hereunder:- “13. The question as to whether the owner of a vehicle had taken care to inform himself as to whether the driver entrusted to drive the vehicle was having a licence or not is essentially a question fact. However, in this case, it stands admitted that as on the date of accident, namely, on 27.1.1996, the driver did not hold any licence. Furthermore, it is beyond dispute that he had a licence only for one year and for about 3 years thereafter, he failed and neglected to renew his licence. His licence was renewed only on and from 7.2.1996. …………… ……………. …………… 19. The principle laid down in Kusum Rai (supra) has been reiterated in Ishwar Chandra & Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., (2007) 10 SCC 650 , referring to sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act, this Court stated the law, thus :- "9. From a bare perusal of the said provision, it would appear that the licence is renewed in terms of the said Act and the rules framed thereunder. The proviso appended to Section 15(1) of the Act in no uncertain terms states that whereas the original licence granted despite expiry remains valid for a period of 30 days from the date of expiry, if any application for renewal thereof is filed thereafter, the same would be renewed from the date of its renewal. The accident took place 28-4-1995. The proviso appended to Section 15(1) of the Act in no uncertain terms states that whereas the original licence granted despite expiry remains valid for a period of 30 days from the date of expiry, if any application for renewal thereof is filed thereafter, the same would be renewed from the date of its renewal. The accident took place 28-4-1995. As on the said date, the renewal application had not been filed, the driver did not have a valid licence on the date when the vehicle met with the accident."” 10. Similar view has been taken by this Court in FAO No.308 of 2008, titled Partap Chand and another vs. Harinder Kumar and another and connected appeal, decided on 5.6.2015. 11. Therefore, the driver of the offending vehicle cannot be said to be having a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant point of time. In the given circumstances, it can safely be held that the owner has committed willful breach for the simple reason that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. 12. Having said so, the impugned award is modified and the owner is saddled with the liability. Keeping in view the fact that the claimant is a third party, the insurer has to satisfy the impugned award at the first instance and lay motion for recovery from the owner. Ordered accordingly. 13. As far as interest is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum. It is beaten law of 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 & Ors. versus Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpn., reported in 2014 AIR SCW 2982; Amresh Kumari versus Niranjan Lal Jagdish Pd. 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. 14. Accordingly, it is held that the amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the deposit thereof. The insurer is directed to deposit the entire amount alongwith interest within four weeks from today, if not already deposited. The Registry is directed to release the amount in favour of the claimant through his bank account forthwith. The insurer is at liberty to file application for effecting recovery before the Tribunal. 15. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.