JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice This appeal is directed against the award dated 19th May, 2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), in Claim Petition No. 92 of 2002/133 of 2005, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.3,05,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, came to be awarded in favour of the claimant-respondent No. 1 herein and the insurer-appellant herein was saddled with liability (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned award’). 2. The claimant, owner-insured and driver have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far it relates to them. 3. The insurer has questioned the impugned award on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 4. The only question to be determined in this appeal is-whether the Tribunal has rightly saddled the insurer with liability? The answer is in the affirmative for the following reasons. 5. Claimant Mathara Devi had filed claim petition before the Tribunal, for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/-, as per the break-ups given therein, on the ground that her son, namely, Jitender Kumar was traveling in vehicle-Tempo Maxi Cab bearing registration No. HP-32-5935, alongwith goods, which met with an accident, and Jitender Kumar had lost his life in the said accident. 6. During the pendency of the claim petition, the same was amended. The amended claim petition was filed on 22nd February, 2003. 7. The owner and driver have filed reply. They have admitted paras 10 & 24 (i) of the claim petition. It is apt to reproduce paras 10 & 24(i) of the reply filed on behalf of the driver and owner: “10. In reply to this para it is submitted that the deceased had hired the vehicle of respondent No. 2 from Dhaban to Solan for selling the garlic and for bringing the other items from Solan and were coming from Solan. 11 to 23………….. 24(i) Sub para No. 1 of Para No. 24 of the claim petition is admitted to the extent that deceased was coming back to his home from Solan after selling some garlic and was in custodian of remaining unsold garlic and reached Badour Ghati near Spathu towards Kunihar side and two van came from Kunihar towards Spathu. 11 to 23………….. 24(i) Sub para No. 1 of Para No. 24 of the claim petition is admitted to the extent that deceased was coming back to his home from Solan after selling some garlic and was in custodian of remaining unsold garlic and reached Badour Ghati near Spathu towards Kunihar side and two van came from Kunihar towards Spathu. Rests of the para is wrong, incorrect, hence denied. It is submitted that accident has not taken place due to the rash and negligent manner, the respondent No. 1 tried to save them form colling with jeep to which respondent No. 1 was driving and while the respondent No. 1 applied brakes the Jeep skid and fell down.” 8. Thus, it is admitted that the offending vehicle was hired and the goods were loaded thereon for the purpose of sale. 9. The insurer has evasively taken plea that the claimants and the owner are in collusion. It has not led any evidence, has failed to discharge the onus. 10. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the owner has committed willful breach in terms of the mandate of Sections 147 & 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for short ‘the Act’ read with the terms and conditions contained in the insurance policy, as held by the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Swaran Singh & others, reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1531. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of para 105 of the judgment herein below: “105. ..................... (i) ......................... (ii) ........................ (iii) The breach of policy condition e.g. disqualification of driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in subsection (2) (a) (ii) of Section 149, have to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. To avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. (iv) The insurance companies are, however, with a view to avoid their liability, must not only establish the available defence(s) raised in the said proceedings but must also establish 'breach' on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof wherefore would be on them. (v)......................... (vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards insured unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply “the rule of main purpose” and the concept of “fundamental breach” to allow defences available to the insured under Section 149 (2) of available the Act.” 11. It is also profitable to reproduce para 10 of the latest judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation versus National Insurance Company, reported in (2013) 10 Supreme Court Cases 217, hereinbelow: “10. In a claim for compensation, it is certainly open to the insurer under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) to take a defence that the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident was not duly licensed. Once such a defence is taken, the onus is on the insurer. But even after it is proved that the licence possessed by the driver was a fake one, whether there is liability on the insurer is the moot question. As far as the owner of the vehicle is concerned, when he hires a driver, he has to check whether the driver has a valid driving licence. Thereafter he has to satisfy himself as to the competence of the driver. If satisfied in that regard also, it can be said that the owner had taken reasonable care in employing a person who is qualified and competent to drive the vehicle. Thereafter he has to satisfy himself as to the competence of the driver. If satisfied in that regard also, it can be said that the owner had taken reasonable care in employing a person who is qualified and competent to drive the vehicle. The owner cannot be expected to go beyond that, to the extent of verifying the genuineness of the driving licence with the licensing authority before hiring the services of the driver. However, the situation would be different if at the time of insurance of the vehicle or thereafter the insurance company requires the owner of the vehicle to have the licence duly verified from the licensing authority or if the attention of the owner of the vehicle is otherwise invited to the allegation that the licence issued to the driver employed by him is a fake one and yet the owner does not take appropriate action for verification of the matter regarding the genuineness of the licence from the licensing authority. That is what is explained in Swaran Singh case. If despite such information with the owner that the licence possessed by his driver is fake, no action is taken by the insured for appropriate verification, then the insured will be at fault and, in such circumstances, the Insurance Company is not liable for the compensation.” 12. This Court in FAO No. 322 of 2011, titled as IFFCO-TOKIO Gen. Insurance Company Limited versus Smt. Joginder Kaur and others, decided on 29.08.2014 and FAO No. 523 of 2007, titled as Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. versus Smt. Rikta alias Kritka & others, decided on 19.12.2014, has laid down the same principle. 13. At this stage, learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the award amount is excessive. 14. I have gone through the entire record. The award amount is not excessive, rather, inadequate. But the claimants have not questioned the same. 15. The Tribunal has awarded interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, is on the higher side. 16. 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. 16. 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 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, I deem it proper to reduce the rate of interest from 9% per annum to 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 18. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified, as indicated above. 19. The Registry is directed to release the amount to the claimants, strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award and the balance amount, if any, be released in favour of the appellant through payees’ account cheque. 20. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. 21. Send down the records after placing a copy of the judgment on the Tribunal's file.