JUDGMENT : 1. The award dated 31.12.2011 in M.V.O.P.No.204 of 2010, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional & Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam (for short, “the Tribunal”), is assailed by the United India Insurance Company Limited, which has been arrayed as 2nd respondent in the aforementioned O.P disputing its liability to pay compensation to the claimant therein on several other grounds. 2. Though several grounds are raised by the insurance company disputing its liability to pay compensation, the grounds over which more emphasis is laid are as under:- 1. The appellant insurance company’s contention is that the tribunal has erred in fixing of liability as against it as the insured travelled as unauthorised passenger in a goods vehicle. It is deposed by P.W.1 that while he was travelling in the offending vehicle along with his father and others he met with accident. 2. Since the claimant travelled as un-authroised passenger in a van which was meant for carrying the goods, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to her. 3. Though the insurance company has proved the said fact the claimant travelled in a goods carrying vehicle as unauthorised passenger by producing Exs.B.1 and B.3 documents, the Tribunal instead of exonerating it liability from the liability of payment of compensation wrongly fastened the liability as against it. 3. From the aforementioned grounds urged by the insurance company, it is understood that it has no grievance as regard to compensation determined by the tribunal. The claimant in O.P.No.204 of 2010, was the minor, aged about 14 years old by the date of filing of the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-as against the appellant insurance company and the owner of the crime van bearing No.A.P.30 T 5875. The tribunal on appreciation of evidence of P.W.1 and also the evidence of Dr.M.V. Lakshmana Kumar under whose care and supervision the claimant took the treatment for fracture injury that was received to her left leg awarded the compensation of Rs.1,30,325/-having felt that awarding of such amount towards compensation to her is fair and reasonable. 4. She examined P.W.2 and also produced Ex.X.1 case sheet. Ex.A.3 certified copy of wound certificate produced by her would indicate that she received deep lacerated injury on left leg exposing underlying muscles and the bone, measuring 15x6 cms and on radiological examination it was found to be a grievous injury. 5. 4. She examined P.W.2 and also produced Ex.X.1 case sheet. Ex.A.3 certified copy of wound certificate produced by her would indicate that she received deep lacerated injury on left leg exposing underlying muscles and the bone, measuring 15x6 cms and on radiological examination it was found to be a grievous injury. 5. Looking into the evidence given by P.W.2 with reference to Ex.X.1 case sheet and other documents she produced viz., the disability certificate, medical bills and prescription and the x-ray, the tribunal determined the compensation at Rs.1,30,325/-. 6. The main grievance of the appellant-insurance company is that the Tribunal has erroneously fastened the liability as against it instead of exonerating it from the liability of payment of compensation as the petitioner travelled as unauthorised passenger in a goods carrying vehicle. 7. It has examined R.W.1 to prove its aforementioned contention. It is testified by R.W.1 that the vehicle involved in the accident is a goods carrying vehicle and carrying of passengers in such vehicle is prohibited. 8. It is also testified by him that Ex.B.2 insurance policy is only an act policy, and it does not cover the risk of the passengers. 9. It is elicited in the cross-examination of R.W.1 that under Ex.B.1 insurance policy, Rs.75,000/-is collected as non employee premium and that owner of the goods can travel in the said van. It is deposed by P.W.1 that the vehicle was engaged for carrying the goods also. Petitioner met with an accident while she was travelling in the offending vehicle along with the goods required for the marriage. The seating capacity of the offending van as found from the contents of Ex.B.2 is, 3 persons. It means, apart from the driver two persons can travel. As per the evidence of P.W.1, the vehicle is given for carrying goods required for marriage and this portion of his evidence has not been disproved. 10. Though it is stated in the evidence of R.W.1 that the vehicle involved in the accident a goods carrying vehicle, and that the claimant travelled in it unauthorisedly, it is admitted by him that Rs.75,000/-is collected towards non employee premium and that owner of goods can travel in the offending van. 11. The evidence of P.W.1 that the offending van is engaged to carry goods also has not been controverted by the appellant. 11. The evidence of P.W.1 that the offending van is engaged to carry goods also has not been controverted by the appellant. It is evident that some goods also carried in the vehicle by him, while taking his daughter with him to the marriage also has not been rebutted. 12. Having taken note of the contents of Exs.B.1 to B.3 documents and also the evidence of R.W.1 who has deposed that the owner of goods can travel in the van, the tribunal has made the insurance company to pay compensation to the claimants who’s father deposed that he along with the claimant travelled in the offending van along with the goods etc., 13. The methodology adopted by the tribunal for assessing the compensation is not in dispute and that no contention whatsoever raised by the insurance company disputing the method adopted by the tribunal for determination of compensation. 14. In the light of my aforementioned discussion, the appeal filed by the insurance company where compensation of Rs.1,30,325/-is determined needs no intervention. But in my view, the interest awarded on compensation is on higher side. 15. By virtue of the modification order now passed, the compensation amount of Rs.1,30,325/-is to be paid to the claimant together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till date of realisation. 16. Having regard to the above, the appeal filed by the appellant insurance company is allowed partly reducing the rate of interest to 7.5% per annum from 9% per annum. No order as to costs. 17. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of.