JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award, dated 2nd March, 2010, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh (for short "the Tribunal") in M.A.C. Petition No. 42S/2 of 2009, titled as Kumari Sujata and another versus Vinay Bhagnal and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.25,44,800/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization and costs assessed at Rs.10,000/- came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and the insurer came to be saddled with liability (for short “the impugned award”). 2. The claimants, the driver and the owner-insured of the offending vehicle have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. The appellant-insurer has questioned the impugned award on the grounds taken in the memo of the appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer argued that the accident has taken place due to the overloading of the offending bus, thus, the owner-insured has committed a willful breach. Further argued that the interest awarded is on the higher side. 5. By the medium of the claim petition, the claimants have claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/-, as per the breakups given in the claim petition. 6. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections. 7. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether death of Kaushalaya Sharma was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 2, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is decided in affirmative whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so the amount thereof? OPP 3. In case compensation is awarded, it is to be paid by respondent No. 3 being indemnifier of respondent No. 1, as alleged? OPR1& 2 4. Whether the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent No. 2 without driving licence and in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as alleged? OPR3 5. Relief.” 8. The claimants have examined Dr. Ashok Handa as PW1, Shri Ajay Sharma as PW3, Constable Pritam Singh as PW4, Shri Kewal Krishan as PW5 and one of the claimants, namely Sujata, herself appeared in the witness box as PW2. OPR3 5. Relief.” 8. The claimants have examined Dr. Ashok Handa as PW1, Shri Ajay Sharma as PW3, Constable Pritam Singh as PW4, Shri Kewal Krishan as PW5 and one of the claimants, namely Sujata, herself appeared in the witness box as PW2. The owner-insured, namely Shri Vinay Bhagnal, and the driver, namely Shri Ramesh Kumar, themselves stepped into the witness box as RW1 and RW3, respectively, and examined Shri Surender Kumar as RW2, HC Ranjit Singh as RW4 and Shri Anokhi Ram as RW5. 9. It is apt to record herein that the insurer has not examined any witness, thus, the evidence led by the claimants, the driver and the owner-insured of the offending vehicle has remained unrebutted so far it relates to the insurer. Issue No. 1: 10. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that the claimants have proved that the driver of the offending vehicle, namely Shri Ramesh Kumar, had driven the offending vehicle, i.e. bus, bearing registration No. HP-648097, rashly and negligently on 4th May, 2009, near the place Nai Natti at about 4.05 P.M. and caused the accident, in which deceased-Kaushalaya Sharma sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. There is no challenge to the said findings. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 are upheld. 11. Before I deal with issue No. 2, I deem it proper to determine issues No. 3 and 4. Issue No. 3: 12. It was for the owner-insured and the driver of the offending vehicle to plead and prove that the offending vehicle was insured, have placed on record the documents, which do disclose that the offending vehicle was duly insured at the time of the accident and its seating capacity was 42'. Their evidence has remained unrebutted. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 3 are upheld. Issue No. 4: 13. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence and the offending vehicle was being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions contained in the insurance policy of the mandate of Sections 147 and 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short “MV Act”), have not led any evidence, thus, have failed to discharge the onus. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 4 are also upheld. Issue No. 2: 14. I have gone through the discussions made in paras 9 to 12 of the impugned award, the amount awarded appears to be inadequate. The deceased was working as a teacher at the time of the accident and the last pay drawn by her was Rs.23,765/- in terms of the salary certificate Ext.PW3/A. After deducting one third towards her personal expenses, the Tribunal held that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.15,800/- per month. Further held that the deceased was 47 years of age at the relevant point of time and applied the multiplier of 13', is just and appropriate in view of the Second Schedule appended with MV Act read with the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case titled as Sarla Verma (Smt) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, which was upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari & Ors. versus Madan Mohan & Anr., reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3120. Accordingly, the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue No. 2 are upheld. 15. I deem it proper to record herein that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in awarding interest @ 12% per annum. 16. 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 Supreme Court Cases 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 Supreme Court Cases 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 Supreme Court Cases 433, and Mohinder Kaur and others versus Hira Nand Sindhi (Ghoriwala) and another, reported in (2015) 4 Supreme Court Cases 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. 17. Having said so, the impugned award is modified, as indicated hereinabove, and the appeal is disposed of. 18. Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimants strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award through payee's account cheque or by depositing the same in their respective bank accounts. Excess amount, if any, be released in favour of the insurer. 19. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.