JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., has preferred this appeal against the Judgment/Award dated 31.08.2018 passed by Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Hazaribag in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 01 of 2011, whereby the claimants have been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,97,200/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of settlement of issue i.e. 02.08.2017 till its payment within 30 days from the order passed in favour of the applicants namely, (i) Kiran Devi, wife of deceased Raj Kishore Sahu @ Sao, (ii) Anchal Kumari, daughter of deceased Raj Kishore Sahu @ Sao and (iii) Netik Kumar, son of deceased Raj Kishore Sahu @ Sao, all residents of Mohalla-Kumhar Toli, P.O., P.S. & District – Hazaribagh, failing which the interest rate would be 9% per annum thereafter (after 30 days from order) till date of final realization to be paid by both Insurance Company i.e. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company, Insurer of Tata 709 Truck bearing registration no. JH-01AE-4464 and the New India Assurance Company Ltd., Insurer of Dumper bearing registration no. JH-01T-6446 in equal ration of 50% each because of composite negligence of both vehicle. 2. The learned Tribunal has further directed that out of the awarded amount, Rs. 3 Lacs together with proportionate interest calculated thereof shall be paid in the name of applicant no. 1 Kiran Devi (wife of the deceased) from which Rs. 1 Lac shall be deposited in her name in “fixed term deposit for five years” in any nationalized bank or Post Office and remaining award amount of Rs. 3,97,200/-with proportionate interest calculated thereof shall be paid in equal proportion in the names of the minor applicant no. 2 Anchal Kumari (daughter of the deceased) and Netik Kumar (son of the deceased). The entire amount of the compensation received in the name of applicant no. 2 & 3 i.e. minor children of the deceased shall be deposited in “long term fixed deposit scheme” in any nationalized bank or Post Office till they attained majority. The learned Tribunal has further directed Opposite party no. 5 -Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited/appellant to recover the award amount, paid to the applicants i.e. 3,48,600/-with interest as per order, from opposite party no. 4 (Owner of the offending vehicle No. JH-01-AE-4464-Arvind Kumar Agarwal). 3. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. The learned Tribunal has further directed Opposite party no. 5 -Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited/appellant to recover the award amount, paid to the applicants i.e. 3,48,600/-with interest as per order, from opposite party no. 4 (Owner of the offending vehicle No. JH-01-AE-4464-Arvind Kumar Agarwal). 3. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Alok Lal, has submitted that the impugned award is fit to be set aside on two counts; (i) that the deceased Raj Kishore Sahu @ Sao was a gratuitous passenger, for which no premium was paid; (ii) that the driver of the offending vehicle JH-01-AE-4464 has no valid and effective licence. 4. To strengthen his argument, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Alok Lal, has drawn attention of this Court towards paragraph-2 of the impugned award, where it has been stated that as per claim petition read with F.I.R., it is stated that on 01.06.2010 at about 9:00 p.m. (night) Raj Kishore Sahu @ Sao (deceased) along with other labourers, after unloading sand at Ranchi were returning to Bundu for loading sand by the Vehicle Tata 709 bearing registration no. JH-01-AE-4464. When the said vehicle reached near Village-Nehalgarha, under Bundu Police Station, in the district of Ranchi, at about 9:00 p.m., suddenly a Dumper bearing registration no. JH-01T-6446, driven by its driver rashly and negligently, dashed with heavy impact against the truck bearing registration no. JH-01AE-4464 as a result, the truck bearing registration no. JH-01AE-4464 turned turtle and due to which, the labourers on the vehicle were thrown away, the deceased died on the spot and other persons got critical injury. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, in view of judgment passed in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Asha Rani & Others reported in (2003) 2 SCC 223 (para-9 & 29). 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the driver was not having valid and effective licence. The notices have been issued upon the driver as well as owner of the vehicle, bearing registration no. JH-01AE-4464, which was insured before the appellant. The owner has appeared on 15.06.2011 but did not file written statement. Thus, owner namely, Arbind Kumar Agarwal was debarred from filing written statement on 22.02.2017. The driver of the said truck namely, Ram Bikash Ganjhu (opposite party no. 6) was served with notice, but did not appear. JH-01AE-4464, which was insured before the appellant. The owner has appeared on 15.06.2011 but did not file written statement. Thus, owner namely, Arbind Kumar Agarwal was debarred from filing written statement on 22.02.2017. The driver of the said truck namely, Ram Bikash Ganjhu (opposite party no. 6) was served with notice, but did not appear. Thus, the case proceeded against him ex-parte vide order dated 22.02.2017. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has framed three issues and decided the case considering composite negligence of two vehicles i.e. Truck Tata 709 bearing registration no. JH-01AE-4464 which was insured before the appellant, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., in which the deceased Raj Kishore Sahu @ Sao was traveling and Dumper bearing registration no. JH-01T-6446, which was insured before the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The Tribunal found that the deceased Raj Kishore Sahu died in motor accident due to composite negligence of both vehicles and accordingly, hold drivers of both offending vehicles Dumper bearing registration no. JH-01T-6446 (insured before New India Assurance Company Limited) and truck Tata 709 bearing registration no. JH-01AE-4464 (insured before Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited) were responsible in equal measure for causing the alleged accident, as both of them were driving their respective heavy vehicles in very rash and negligent manner at excessive high and uncontrolled speed, causing death of a young man namely, Raj Kishore Sahu at the age of 31 years. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Alok Lal, has submitted that appellant (Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.) is not assailing the entire compensation awarded by Tribunal, which will be apparent from memo of appeal, rather, the 50% liability has been fastened upon respondent no. 7 i.e. The New India Assurance Company Limited, who has indemnified their part liability by paying 50% of the Award. 9. The appellant - Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company has preferred this Miscellaneous Appeal, assailing 50% of the compensation awarded in favour of the claimants, which comes to Rs. 3,48,600/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of settlement of issue i.e. 02.08.2017 to be paid within 30 days of the award, failing which the interest would be 9% thereafter till the date of actual realization of the awarded amount. 10. 3,48,600/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of settlement of issue i.e. 02.08.2017 to be paid within 30 days of the award, failing which the interest would be 9% thereafter till the date of actual realization of the awarded amount. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned award on the ground of gratuitous passenger as stated above and on the ground of violation of Section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, as the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle JH-01AE-4464 was not valid on the date of accident i.e. 01.06.2010. In support of this, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pappu & Others Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba & Another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 208 . 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the Tribunal has given a liberty to recover the awarded amount paid to the claimants to the tune of Rs. 3,48,600/-with interest from the owner of the offending vehicle JH-01AE-4464 Arbind Kumar Agarwal. As such, in view of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 (Para-108), the Tribunal ought to have directed the owner of the vehicle, who was present in the proceeding before the Claim Tribunal, to pay the same and should not have directed Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. with liability to pay same and recover it from the owner of the vehicle, which leads to unnecessary multiplicity of the proceeding. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the Tribunal has directed to pay the interest @ 6% simple from the date of settlement of issue i.e. 02.08.2017 to be paid within 30 days, though the statutory provisions to prefer an appeal against an award under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is 90 days. The Tribunal has further directed excessive interest @ 9%, after 30 days of the award, to be paid to the claimants, till the actual date of its realization, which is exorbitant, as such, the interest may be reduced. 13. The Tribunal has further directed excessive interest @ 9%, after 30 days of the award, to be paid to the claimants, till the actual date of its realization, which is exorbitant, as such, the interest may be reduced. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that under the aforesaid background, the appeal may be allowed or notice may be issued to the respondents, as there is delay of 75 days in preferring the appeal and for condonation of the same, I.A. No. 1948/2019 has been preferred. Recently, claimants have filed execution case before the learned Tribunal vide Execution Case No. 35 of 2020 for execution of the Award before the M.A.C.T., Hazaribagh, as such the same may be stayed under Order XLI Rule 5 (5) of the C.P.C., for which I.A. No. 726/2020 has been preferred. 14. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Alok Lal, perused the materials brought on record including the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court relied upon by counsel for the appellant. 15. From perusal of materials on record, it appears that the Truck Tata 709 bearing registration no. JH-01AE-4464, in which the deceased Raj Kishore Sahu was travelling as a labourer died in a motor vehicle accident on 01.06.2010 because of the composite negligence of two vehicles i.e. JH-01AE-4464 (insured before the appellant) and Dumper JH-01T-6446 (insured before New India Assurance Company Limited). 16. The Tribunal has fastened both the Insurance Company with 50% liability each, considering the motor vehicle accident, as a result of composite negligence of the driver of both the vehicle. 17. The half of the liability fastened by the learned Tribunal upon the driver of the vehicle JH-01T-6446, insured before the New India Assurance Company Limited, has already been indemnified by paying the same to the applicants/claimants and the same is not assailed before this Court. 18. The present Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company, is only with regard to two issues i.e. whether the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and whether the owner of the vehicle has violated the terms and conditions of the policy as the driving licence of the driver of the vehicle Ram Bikash Ganjhu has not been placed on record. 19. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. 19. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Alok Lal, and on the basis of perusal of material, the undisputed fact is that the vehicle bearing registration no. JH-01AE-4464 was insured before Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, on the date of fateful accident. There is no dispute with regard to insurance coverage. The only dispute is whether the deceased was a gratuitous passenger or not, as it has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant, that several other labourers have also sustained injury and the insured has paid premium with regard to vehicle, driver and cleaner, as such, the deceased being a gratuitous passenger cannot be liable to be compensated by Insurance Company. 20. After going through the material on record, it appears that the dependents of the deceased are the only claimants before the Court and the Tribunal has rightly considered the same while deciding Issue No. III i.e. Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation arising out of this motor vehicle accident and if, so as to what extent and against whom. 21. This Issue was decided by the Tribunal at paragraph no. 17 onwards by framing another three cardinal questions; (i) Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation arising of this motor accident ? (ii) if entitled to compensation, then to what extent? (iii) The claimants/applicants are entitled for compensation against whom of the above opposite parties? 22. The Question No. (i) has been decided in favour of the claimants namely, widow, minor children of the deceased, relying upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 . So far Question No. (ii) is concerned, the Tribunal has considered the same with regard to extent of compensation considering the age of the deceased to be 31 years as per post-mortem report brought on record and marked 'X'. 23. Considering number of dependents, income of the deceased on the basis of pleadings of the parties and age reflected in post-mortem report as 31 years, compensation has been awarded. Income of the deceased has been considered by the Tribunal to be not less than Rs. 3500/-per month as the occurrence is of the year 2010 and wage at that time was ranging per day from Rs. 115 to Rs. Income of the deceased has been considered by the Tribunal to be not less than Rs. 3500/-per month as the occurrence is of the year 2010 and wage at that time was ranging per day from Rs. 115 to Rs. 135, as such, considering the income of Rs. 3500/-with other parameters, as laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (paragraph-59.8) as reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 = 2017 (4) TAC 673 (SC) read with Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 = AIR 2009 (SC) 310 annual income was computed and on the basis of same, compensation has been awarded. The quantum of compensation has not been assailed before this Court, as such, this Court is not taking that issue while hearing the appeal. So far regarding the liabilities of the parties, which is Question No. (iii), the Tribunal has considered it in detail and has observed at paragraph-24 & 25, which are re-produced here-in-below:- 24. Re : Issue No. III Question no.(iii) (Contd.):- (B) Re: Offending vechicle TATA 709 No. JH-0IAE-4464:- Secondly, plea taken by 0.P no. 5 (Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.) is that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having duly issue effective driving license at the time of the accident. This plea raised by Ld. Advocate Sri Shalendra Kumar Sinha, Ld. Advocate for Insurer-OP No.5 has merit since it is found that NO copy of driving license of O.P. No. 6 (Driver of offending vehicle-JH01AE-4464) has ever been produced before this Tribunal. The non-production of driving-license of the driver has been raised by the Insurer in its written statement para 11 even then the same has not been produced. Here the owner of the vehicle although entered into appearance but did not file any written statement whereas the OP No.6 -driver of offending vehicle did not appear at all. Thus conclusively it is found that plea of OP No.5 (Insurer-Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.) appears TRUE that driver of the offending vehicle did not have any valid effective driving license on the date of the accident. Thus conclusively it is found that plea of OP No.5 (Insurer-Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.) appears TRUE that driver of the offending vehicle did not have any valid effective driving license on the date of the accident. This goes to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle (JH01AE4464) did not possess any driving license at the time of the accident and without any driving license he drove the said vehicle and caused it overturned resulting into death of the deceased. It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Swaran Singh and Others 2004 (1) T.A.C (S.C.) that "............Once assured proved that the accident is covered by compulsory Insurance clause, it is for the insurer to prove that it comes within an exception-Provisions of sub sections (4) and (5) of section 149 may be considered as the liability of insurer to satisfy the decree at the first instance Liability of Insurer to satisfy the decree passed in favour of third party being statutory-When driver of vehicle admittedly did not hold any license and same was allowed consciously to be driven by the owner of vehicle by such person, insurer entitled to succeed in its defence and avoid liability-Insurer cannot shake off its liability only by saying that at relevant point of time vehicle was driven by a person having no license." *(underlines are emphasized) Here in this case the factual position is that the driver of the offending vehicle (O.P. No.6) has not appeared; the owner of offending vehicle (O.P. No.4) although appeared but he has not told anything including that whether the driver had any driving license or not. No copy of driving license has been brought on the record, either by the claimant or by the owner of the offending vehicle. Hence, this Tribunal is led to irresistible conclusion at this stage that (i) the offending vehicle is duly covered by insurance (ii) but its driver at the time of accident involving death of deceased is found to without any Driving License. Hence, this Tribunal is led to irresistible conclusion at this stage that (i) the offending vehicle is duly covered by insurance (ii) but its driver at the time of accident involving death of deceased is found to without any Driving License. Here the Insurer was required to prove not only that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having the duly issued effective Driving-license for driving the vehicle but also to prove that the insured, that is owner of vehicle (OP No.1) did not take care and caution of it and knowingly allowed a person without any driving license or duly issued Driving license to drive his vehicle. 25. Re: Issue No. III -Question no (iii) (Contd.) :-- (B) Re: Offending vehicle TATA 709 No. JH-01AE-4464:- In the backdrop of above emerged facts, now most crucial Question arises as to whose liability is to pay the HALF of the total compensation amount for which the owner of the offending vehicle (OP No.4) has been held liable in respect of PROVED death of this poor man by composite negligence of driver of his offending vehicle bearing No. JH01AE-4464. Of course, HAD it been conclusively proved that O.P. No.4 (Owner of offending vehicle No. JH01AE-4464) has knowingly allowed his vehicle to be driven by driver having no effective license then certainly Insurer would have been entitled to succeed in its defence and avoid liability. But here Insurer (O.P. No.4) has not been able to conclusively prove it as yet. Hon'ble the Apex Court of India in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Swaran Singh and others 2004 (1) T.A.C. 321 (SC) have been pleased to lay down as follows addressing such situation :- "Motor Insurance-Driving License-Defences available to Insurers-Liability of Insurers to satisfy the decree at first instance and recover the awarded amount from the owner or driver of vehicle holding field for a long time-Doctrine of Stare decisis persuades not to deviate from existing principle." It is well settled principle of that it is the statutory right of Third party to recover amount of compensation so awarded from the Insurer and it is for the insurer to proceed against the insured for recovery of amount in event of violation of any condition of insurance policy. Therefore, by virtue of the provision of sections 147 (5) and 149 (1) of the M.V. Act,1988 , the O.P. No.5 [Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Therefore, by virtue of the provision of sections 147 (5) and 149 (1) of the M.V. Act,1988 , the O.P. No.5 [Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.] being Insurer of the offending vehiele TATA 709 (JH-01-AE-4464) is required firstly to indemnify third parties (applicants) in respect of the liabilities which this policy covered with respect to the said offending vehicle and to satisfy award of compensation in respect thereof and then to proceed for the recovery of Award amount from the owner of offending vehicle subject to proving the above raised breach of conditions of policy by him. By virtue of the provision of Section 147 (5) and 149 (1) of the MV Act, the insurance company becomes liable to indemnify third parties in respect of the liabilities which that policy covered and to satisfy award of compensation in respect thereof against the owner of the vehicle. Hence, the first liability to pay the 50 % of total compensation awarded and levied against the owner of is upon the O.P. No. 5, who is the insurer of offending vehicle No. JH0AE-4464. Accordingly, the O.P.No.5 (Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.) is found liable to indemnify the compensation amount to be paid by the owner of Dumper (OP No.1). The Insurer [OP No.5-Bajaj Allianz General India Insurance Co.Ltd., of the offending vehicle (Tata 709 -Registration No. JH-01AE-4464)] is directed to FIRST PAY the half of the above calculated compensation amount with interest as per order to the applicant/claimant. And then it may RECOVER the same from the O.P. No.1 (Owner of offending vehicle) To be specific, the half of the compensation amount that is Rs. 3,48,600/-with interest as per order of this Tribunal has to be paid to applicants by the OP No.5 (Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd) And then it may RECOVER the same from the O.P. No.4 (Owner of offending vehicle). Accordingly, the Question No. III and in conclusion ISSUE No., III is decided in favour of the Applicants/Claimants and against the Opposite Parties. 24. Considering the same, this Court is of the opinion that the Insurance Company/appellant has only stated in para-11 of its written statement that driver of the offending Vehicle had no valid and effective licence on the date of alleged occurrence. Except for the pleading in the written statement, no evidence has been brought on record. 24. Considering the same, this Court is of the opinion that the Insurance Company/appellant has only stated in para-11 of its written statement that driver of the offending Vehicle had no valid and effective licence on the date of alleged occurrence. Except for the pleading in the written statement, no evidence has been brought on record. The Insurance Company has not discharged its duty in accordance with Section 102 of the Evidence Act. It is cardinal principles of law, that the person who will plead is duty bound to prove it. The Insurance Company has completely failed in bringing any material before the Tribunal with regard to the validity of the driving licence. The Insurance Company neither took steps under Rule 235 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1992 by filing a petition. Nor any evidence has been brought on record to give a clear cut finding with regard to invalid licence of the driver of the offending vehicle JH-01AE-4464. 25. The Apex Court in a recent case Nirmala Kothari Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 286 has held in para 12 as under: “It is not the contention of the Respondent/Insurance Company that the Appellant/complainant is guilty of willful negligence while employing the driver. The driver had been driving competently and there was no reason for the Appellant/complainant to doubt the veracity of the driver's licence. In view of the above fact and circumstances, the impugned judgment is not liable to be sustained and is hereby set aside. The appeals accordingly stands allowed. The respondent/Insurance Company is held liable to indemnify the appellant.” 26. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that whatsoever the right has been given to the Insurance Company to recover the same from the owner, the same is subject to prove in view of latest judgment passed in the case of Nirmala Kothari (Supra) as such the issue that the driver of the vehicle had no valid driving licence is hereby negated by this Court in absence of any material on record and in view of the judgment cited above giving liberty to the Insurance Company to raise the issue and prove the same before the competent court of law. 27. 27. So far gratuitous passenger is concerned, this Court has perused the material brought on record and is of the opinion that the deceased Raj Kishore Sahu @ Sao was working as a labourer and died in a motor accident at the age of 31 years leaving behind his wife, one minor daughter and one minor son. 28. The appellant Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited has been fasten with 50% of the liability, which comes to Rs. 3,48,600/-with interest as awarded by the Tribunal and the rest of the 50% i.e. 3,48,600/- along with interest has been saddled upon New India Assurance Co. Ltd., who has already indemnified the compensation. The premium was paid for the vehicle, driver and cleaner, as such, the deceased was not considered as gratuitous passenger. 29. Under the aforesaid background, this Court is not inclined to accept the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that deceased Ram Kishore Sahu @ Sao was a gratuitous passenger and accordingly, the same is hereby negated. 30. The appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed, as the matter relates to an occurrence dated 01.06.2010, more than 10 years have lapsed, the victim wife, minor daughter and minor son are the sufferer. As such, this Court is not interfering in the impugned award in absence of any contrary material on record. 31. So far the interest of 6% S.I. from the date of settlement of issue i.e. 02.08.2017 for 30 days and failing which 9%, thereafter till the date of realization of the amount are concerned, this Court is conscious of the judgment passed by learned Apex Court in the case of Dharampal and Sons Vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation reported in 2008 (4) JCR 79 (SC), wherein the Apex Court has held that the interest ought to have been 7.5% or prevalent rate of interest of nationalized bank on the date of award. Apart from this, the learned Tribunal without assigning any reason has given interest from the date of settlement of issues. Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as follows:- 171. Apart from this, the learned Tribunal without assigning any reason has given interest from the date of settlement of issues. Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as follows:- 171. Award of interest where any claim is allowed.-Where any Claims Tribunal allows a claim for compensation made under this Act, such Tribunal may direct that in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as it may specify in this behalf. 32. It appears that the original claim application was filed on 04.01.2011, the Tribunal without giving any reason has awarded interest from the date of settlement of issues i.e. 02.08.2017 for 30 days, failing which 9% till the date of realization. As such, this Court is not considering 7.5% because the interest ought to have been paid from 04.01.2011 till the date of actual payment @ 7.5% and if the same is calculated @ 6% from the date of settlement of issues for 30 days of the award i.e. 30.09.2018 and failing which 9% till the date of realization will not change the award with marginal amount. 33. The Tribunal has not considered for 6 years any interest, without showing any reason, that the claim application was delayed because of fault on part of the appellant, which ought to have been shown by the Tribunal, as such taking a holistic view, this Court is not interfering with the interest @ 6% from the date of settlement of issues till 30 days from the date of award, failing which 9% thereafter will come to same, if the same would have been granted at 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of actual payment in view of judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, all the issues raised by appellant have been decided and negated by this Court. 34. The appeal being devoid of any merit and is accordingly, dismissed. 35. The limitation petition filed vide I.A. No. 1948/2019 is hereby also disposed of as the main appeal has been dismissed. 36. The stay petition i.e. I.A. No. 726/2020 is also disposed of as the main appeal has been dismissed. 37. 34. The appeal being devoid of any merit and is accordingly, dismissed. 35. The limitation petition filed vide I.A. No. 1948/2019 is hereby also disposed of as the main appeal has been dismissed. 36. The stay petition i.e. I.A. No. 726/2020 is also disposed of as the main appeal has been dismissed. 37. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant at the time of preferring appeal before this Court shall be remitted to the Claim Tribunal by Registrar General of this Court within four weeks. 38. The Claim Tribunal shall disburse the same in favour of the claimants after due notice and verification. 39. The balance amount of award along with interest as awarded by learned Tribunal shall be indemnified by the Insurance Company as expeditiously as possible as the occurrence is of dated 01.06.2010 and the claimants are widow, minor daughter and minor son of a labourer.