JUDGMENT : These appeals have been filed by the insurance company i.e., insurer of autorikshaw bearing Reg.No.KA18A3512, challenging the legality of the common judgment and award dated 07.06.2014 passed in MVC No.552/2011 and MVC No.553/2011 by the Principal District Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chikmagalur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’ for the sake of brevity). 2. The present appeals are only on the question of liability. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the Tribunal. 3. The relevant facts stated in the petition are that on 01.06.2011 at about 9.15 a.m., when the petitioners were proceeding in the autorikshaw bearing Reg.No.KA18A6278 from Varakate to Morimutt on Kalmara road, a autorikshaw bearing Reg.No.KA18A3512 came from opposite direction and dashed to the autorikshaw in which the petitioners were traveling. As a result of which, one of the inmate viz., Kumari Reshma, died on the spot and the petitioners sustained grievous injuries. The claim petitions were filed by the injured petitioners and the legal representatives of the deceased. 4. On service of notice of the said claim petitions, the respondent Nos.3 and 5 i.e., insurer of autorikshaw bearing Reg.No.KA18A3512 and the insurer of autorikshaw bearing Reg.No.KA18A6278 respectively, have contested the petitions. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not filed the objections. 5. On appreciating the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the accident was due to contributory negligence of the drivers of both the autorikshaws and awarded compensation of Rs.7,000/to the petitioner in MVC No.552/2011 and the compensation of Rs.4,10,000/to the petitioners in MVC No.552/2011 with interest at 9% p.a. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 were directed to pay 50% of the compensation and respondent Nos.4 and 5 were directed to pay the remaining 50% of the compensation. 6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal fixing the liability to pay the compensation, the insurer of autorikshaw bearing Reg.No.KA18A3512 has preferred these appeals. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company and learned counsel for the respondents. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant insurance company contends that the driver of the autorikshaw bearing Reg.No.KA18A3512 had no valid and effective driving licence but the Tribunal has committed error in fixing the liability on the insurer of the said vehicle, which is not proper and justified. 9. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant insurance company contends that the driver of the autorikshaw bearing Reg.No.KA18A3512 had no valid and effective driving licence but the Tribunal has committed error in fixing the liability on the insurer of the said vehicle, which is not proper and justified. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.5 viz., the insurer of autorikshaw bearing Reg.No.KA18A6278 submitted that the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that there was contributory negligence by the drivers of both the autorikshaws to an extent of 50%. The said finding has not been challenged and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to an extent of 50% has been satisfied by respondent No.5. 10. Having heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents and on perusal of the impugned judgment and award, the following points would arise for consideration: i. Whether the finding given by the Tribunal in fixing the liability on the appellant insurance company (insurer of autorikshaw bearing Reg.No.KA18A3512) to pay the compensation to an extent of 50% is justified? 11. The main contention of the appellant insurance company is that the driver of the autorikshaw bearing Reg.No.KA18A3512 had no proper endorsement in his driving licence for driving the transport vehicle. Hence, the liability fixed by the Tribunal is not proper and justified. 12. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company, the issue before this Court is whether the driver of the autorikshaw bearing Reg.No.KA18A3512 should have had an endorsement in his driving licence for driving the transport vehicle so as to fix the liability on the insurer of the vehicle. 13. The said issue is no more resintegraas it has been decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., ( AIR 2017 SC 3668 ). The Apex Court has held that if the driver of the offending vehicle has a valid licence for driving light motor vehicle, then there is no need for having specific endorsement in the driving licence for driving a transport vehicle. Thus, in the present case, even if there is no specific endorsement in the driving licence of the driver of the autorikshaw bearing Reg.No.KA18A3512, absence of such endorsement will not absolve the Insurance Company of its liability to pay the compensation amount to the respondent. Thus, in the present case, even if there is no specific endorsement in the driving licence of the driver of the autorikshaw bearing Reg.No.KA18A3512, absence of such endorsement will not absolve the Insurance Company of its liability to pay the compensation amount to the respondent. 14. In view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision, the finding given by the Tribunal fixing the liability on the insurer of the autorikshaw bearing Reg.No.KA18A3512 is justified and the contentions raised by the appellant insurance company is devoid of merits. Hence, the point is answered in the ‘Affirmative’. 15. As far as the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company contends that the interest awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant and the same needs to be modified. 16. In the present case, the Tribunal has not assigned any special reasons for awarding the interest at 9% p.a. These cases being the motor vehicle claim petitions, as such, awarding of interest at 6% p.a. would be justified. 17. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the opinion that there are no valid grounds to set aside the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal directing the appellant insurer to pay 50% compensation, but the rate of interest needs to be modified. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. Both the appeals filed by the appellant insurance company i.e., insurer of autorikshaw bearing Reg.No.KA18A3512, are allowed inpart. ii. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the interest is awarded at the rate of 6% p.a. as against 9% p.a. awarded by the Tribunal. iii. The appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization before the jurisdictional Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment. The amount in deposit before this Court shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal. Parties to bear their respective costs.