JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 18.8.2011, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”, for short, in Claim Petition No. 197/2005 (04/2003), titled Smt. Bhuvneshwari Devi and others versus Sh. Virender Singh and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.3,85,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and insurer was saddled with the liability, for short “the impugned award”, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. The claimants, owner, and driver have not questioned the impugned award on any ground, thus it has attained the finality, so far as it relates to them. 3. The insurer has questioned the impugned award on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 4. The claimants being the victims of a vehicular accident, have filed claim petition for the grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lacs, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition on account of death of Shri Om Prakash, who died in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 16.9.2002, at Darla-ghat near Ambuja Cement Factory gate due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2 Parvin Kumar while driving Truck No. HP-51-4035. 5. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents and following issues came to be framed. 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2? OPP 2. Whether the deceased died due to the Motor Vehicle accident of truck No. HP-51-4035? OPP 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation and to what amount and from whom? OPP 4. Whether the deceased Om Prakash died due to his own act and conduct? OPR 5. Whether the vehicle was being driven in violation of Insurance Policy and driving licence? OPR 6. Whether deceased was gratuitous passenger at the time of accident as alleged? OPR-3 7. Relief. 6. The claimants have examined five witnesses and one of the claimants, namely, Bhuvneshwari Devi also stepped into the witness box as PW1. Respondents have examined only one witness, namely, Rajesh Pal as RW1. 7. The only question to be determined in this appeal is-whether the Tribunal has rightly saddled the insurer with the liability? The answer is in negative for the following reasons. 8. Respondents have examined only one witness, namely, Rajesh Pal as RW1. 7. The only question to be determined in this appeal is-whether the Tribunal has rightly saddled the insurer with the liability? The answer is in negative for the following reasons. 8. The claimants in para 24(ii) of the claim petition have specifically stated as under:- “24 (ii) On 16.9.2002, the deceased had gone with his above truck to Ambuja Cement Factory, Darlaghat for the carriage of Ambuja Cement. Another Truck of the same owner bearing No. HP-11-1634 driven by one Hoshiar Singh driver had also gone for the same purpose. After parking the above Trucks, the deceased and Hoshiar Singh were coming from the Factory premises to Darlaghat Bazar and in the meantime at the Gate of the Factory, respondent No.2 after loading his Truck No. HP-51-4035 was coming from Factory premises to Darlaghat Bazar. Respondent No.2 on seeing the deceased and Hoshiar Singh (who were his professionist colleagues) stopped his truck and gave lift to them up to Darlaghat Bazar. Before reaching the Bazar, due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2, the vehicle received a big jolt due to which the window of the vehicle opened and deceased fell down on the ground from the Truck and he was crushed by the tyre of the said Truck and he died on the spot. The respondent No.2 after abandoning the deceased on spot of accident, had fled away with his truck.” 9. The owner and the driver have not denied the averments contained in para 24(ii) of the claim petition, referred to supra, for want of knowledge. Thus, it can be safely said that the deceased was not travelling in the said vehicle as an employee of the employer/owner, was gratuitous passenger. It is also not the case of the claimants that the deceased was an employee or the labourer of the owner/insured of the truck. Thus, the owner has committed breach in terms of Sections 147 and 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for short “the Act” read with the terms and conditions contained in the insurance policy. Having said so, the Tribunal has fallen in an error in saddling the insurer with the liability. 10. The claimants are the third party. Thus, it is the obligation of the insurer to satisfy the award at the first instance and recover the same from the insured/owner. Having said so, the Tribunal has fallen in an error in saddling the insurer with the liability. 10. The claimants are the third party. Thus, it is the obligation of the insurer to satisfy the award at the first instance and recover the same from the insured/owner. 11. The Tribunal has awarded interest @ 9% per annum. However, interest was to be awarded at rate of 7.5% per annum, for the following reasons. 12. 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. 13. Accordingly, interest @7.5% per annum is awarded from the date of claim petition till realization of the amount. 14. Viewed thus, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award is modified by providing that the insurer has to satisfy the award at the first instance and recover the same from the owner/insured. The insurer is at liberty to file application for recovery before the Tribunal. 15. The Registry is directed to release the amount in favour of the claimants, alongwith interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till its realization, forthwith, strictly in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award, through payees’ cheque account, or by depositing the same in their bank accounts, after proper verification and excess amount, if any, be released in favour of the appellant/insurer, through payees cheque account. 16. 16. Viewed thus, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award is modified, as indicated hereinabove. 17. Send down the record forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.