JUDGMENT : 1. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the said Act”) filed by the appellant-Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, challenging the judgment dated 3rd May 2018, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur (“the Tribunal”), in Claim Petition No.205 of 2013. 2. Shri H. N. Verma, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would submit that primarily the issues raised in the appeal are with respect to the aspect of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased motorcyclist and the interest of 7.5% per annum awarded by the Tribunal. 3. Learned counsel draws the attention of this Court to paragraph 12 of the impugned judgment to submit that the deceased Manohar Manikrao Agarkar was riding a motorcycle and the accident occurred on a U-turn of Katol Warud Road within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Katol, when the Xylo vehicle, which is insured by the appellant-Insurance Company, dashed/hit the motorcycle of the deceased. Learned counsel would submit that considering the fact that the said accident has occurred on a U-turn of the said road, and as found by the Tribunal from the extent of damage caused to the motorcycle, which was found at a distance of 6 feet, the dead body of the deceased Manohar found lying to the west side of the road at a distance of 50 feet, clearly indicates that the deceased was riding a motorcycle at a high speed and from the wrong side. Learned counsel would also submit that this fact of contributory negligence clearly emerges from the police papers. He would further submit that there is a violation of Section 129 of the said Act, as the deceased found was not wearing a protective helmet at the time of the incident and the postmortem report clearly gives the cause of death as head injury. Shri. Verma, learned counsel, would therefore submit that the aspect of contributory negligence on this count has been completely ignored by the Tribunal and the decision deserves to be set aside on this count. 4. Shri. Verma, learned counsel, would therefore submit that the aspect of contributory negligence on this count has been completely ignored by the Tribunal and the decision deserves to be set aside on this count. 4. With respect to the interest of 7.5% per annum as awarded by the Tribunal on the amount of compensation from the date of the petition till realization of the amount of compensation to the claimants, he would submit that this rate of interest is far too high, considering the lending rate of the Reserve Bank of India which is 6% per annum. Learned counsel refers to the decision of this Court in the case of Reliance General Insurance Company Limited vs. Shaikh Sadik Shaikh Rafique and Others, First Appeal No.1202/2019 with Cross Objection(St.) No.1525/2021 decided on 26.2.2022 where even though the Tribunal had granted the compensation with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till final realization, this Court in its judgment dated 26th February 2022 has directed the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the petition till final realization. 5. On the other hand, Shri. A.S.Ghatole, learned counsel for respondents-claimants would submit that the Tribunal has rightly not held this case to be a case of contributory negligence. Learned counsel also refers to paragraph 12 of the impugned judgment and submits that despite the same findings, the Tribunal has clearly observed that the driver of Xylo vehicle was driving the same from public road and ought to have taken reasonable care and caution, while driving the vehicle from the road having U-turn. He submits that it has also been observed that he was driving the vehicle at a fast speed and fast speed suggests that he was driving the said vehicle rashly and negligently. The front and the rear tyres of the said vehicle were found punctured, its fiber parts of the right side mudguard were found broken. The fact that the two tyres of the said Xylo vehicle got punctured and it dashed to the motorcycle of the deceased suggests that the driver of the Xylo vehicle had lost control over the said vehicle. That he must have been driving the said vehicle at a fast speed because of which he could not control the said vehicle and ultimately gave a dash of his vehicle to motorcycle of the deceased. That he must have been driving the said vehicle at a fast speed because of which he could not control the said vehicle and ultimately gave a dash of his vehicle to motorcycle of the deceased. He neither slowed down his vehicle nor applied breaks to avoid the collision of his vehicle with the motorcycle of the deceased. 6. It is submitted that the material brought on record demonstrates that the accident occurred due to the fault and negligence on the part of the driver of the Xylo vehicle. In fact, learned counsel would submit that it is not even the contention of the insurer that the deceased had contributed in the occurrence of the said accident by driving the motorcycle negligently nor is there any direct evidence in this regard. Learned counsel would submit that it is for the first time in the appeal that the plea of contributory negligence is being taken up by the appellant-Insurance Company. He submits that keeping the factual matrix in mind, the Tribunal has held that the accident occurred due to the fault and negligence on the part of the driver of the Xylo vehicle. Learned counsel would submit that the impugned order clearly suggests that there is no direct evidence for contributory negligence nor any eye witness. Infact, the Insurance Company has not even examined the driver of the offending vehicle : no summon was issued even to the Investigating Officer or to any independent witness. Learned counsel for respondents-claimants refers to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Meera Devi and Another vs. Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and Others, 2014 (5) Mh.L.J. to submit that to succeed in a claim for contributory negligence, there has to be cogent and specific evidence to prove that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased motorcyclist. He vehemently submits that in the absence of any cogent evidence to prove the plea of contributory negligence, the said doctrine cannot be applied in the present case. 7. He vehemently submits that in the absence of any cogent evidence to prove the plea of contributory negligence, the said doctrine cannot be applied in the present case. 7. He also refers to a decision of this Court’s Bench at Aurangabad in the case of United India Insurance Company and Another vs. Bhausaheb and Others, 2010 (1) T.A.C. 20 (Bom.) to submit that even though a defence may be taken of contributory negligence by a party, the same must be substantiated by some evidence, no burden can be cast on the claimants, who knew nothing about the accident and had no personal knowledge. He submits that the claim based on police papers, as in this case, has to be relied upon, as there is no cogent evidence to substantiate contributory negligence on the part of the deceased motorcyclist. 8. With respect to the issue of interest, learned counsel would submit that as on 3rd May 2018, when the impugned decision has been passed, the lending rates were more than 7% per annum. He would further submit that the rate of interest @ 7.5% per annum, has been awarded by the Tribunal, from the date of petition till the realization of the amount of compensation to the claimants, excluding the period of two years, and as such, there is no need to reduce this interest. He further submits that out of the total amount of approximately Rs.52,00,000/-, the Insurance Company has deposited only Rs.35,00,000/- and the claimants have been permitted to withdraw only 50% of this amount. Therefore also, no reduction in interest is warranted. 9. I have heard Shri H.N.Verma, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri. A.S.Ghatole, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants and with their able assistance, I have perused the papers and proceedings in the matter. 10. It is not in dispute that on 5th February 2013 at around 1800 hours, Manohar Agarkar was going towards Bhishnur from Katol by his motorcycle no.MH-40-C-2762 and was riding the said motorcycle by the left side of the road, when, near the bridge of Shivna River at Paradsinga vicinity, the offending Xylo bearing registration no.MH-31- DV-1246 came from the wrong side from Warud towards Katol at a high speed and gave a dash to the motorcycle of the deceased from the opposite side. It is also not in dispute that the spot panchnama reveals that the said accident occurred on the “U” turn of the road. The dead body of the deceased was found lying to the west side of the road at a distance of fifty feet towards east from the bridge. His motorcycle was found at a distance of sixty feet which was damaged. The front and rear tyres of the Xylo vehicle were found punctured and its fiber parts on the right side mudguard were found broken. The collision suggests that the driver of the Xylo vehicle lost control due to the high speed and ultimately hit the motorcycle of the deceased. The finding of the Tribunal that the driver of the Xylo vehicle ought to have taken reasonable care and caution while driving the vehicle from road having “U” turn cannot be faulted with. In my view, the Tribunal was right in holding that since the driver of the Xylo was driving the vehicle at a fast speed, the same suggests rash and negligent driving. There is no evidence to suggest that he slowed down the vehicle to avoid the collision. Also, the fact that the Xylo vehicle was coming from the wrong side from Warud at a high speed, itself suggests rash and negligent driving. The Tribunal has also recorded that it is not the contention of the respondent no.2-insurer that the deceased had contributed in the occurrence of the said accident by driving the motorcycle negligently. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to the fault and negligence on the part of the driver of the Xylo vehicle and the same cannot be faulted with. Further, the First Information Report (FIR), the inquest panchnama and the postmortem report clearly indicate that the deceased died due to head injury, in addition to the multiple injuries and fractures. And although the Insurance company raised a defence that the insured has committed breach of policy condition by handing over possession of the vehicle to a person who was not having valid and effective driving license, the appellant herein has not adduced any evidence to substantiate the same. 11. And although the Insurance company raised a defence that the insured has committed breach of policy condition by handing over possession of the vehicle to a person who was not having valid and effective driving license, the appellant herein has not adduced any evidence to substantiate the same. 11. It is trite law as observed by the Apex Court in Meera Devi and Another vs. Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and Others (supra) that in order to prove contributory negligence, there has to be cogent evidence on record and in the absence of such cogent evidence, the said doctrine cannot be applied. In the present case, no material or evidence has been brought on record to demonstrate that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Paragraph 10 of the said decision is usefully quoted as under : “10. To prove the contributory negligence, there must be cogent evidence. In the instant case, there is no specific evidence to prove that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased scooterist. In the absence of any cogent evidence to prove the plea of contributory negligence, the said doctrine of common law cannot be applied in the present case. We are, thus, of the view that the reasoning given by the High Court has no basis and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 12. Also, the following extract from paragraph 6 of the decision of this Court in United India Insurance Company and Another vs. Bhausaheb and Others (supra) is set out as under : “6……….When a party asserts in pleading, a particular fact to prove or disprove the case, then it must substantiate it by some evidence. No burden can be cast on the claimants in such claim petitions who knew nothing about the accident and had no personal knowledge……….” (emphasis supplied) Therefore, if there is no case of contributory negligence based on the evidence, then such a burden cannot be cast on the claimants. 13. Coming to the next issue with respect to the interest of 7.5 percent per annum, which Mr. 13. Coming to the next issue with respect to the interest of 7.5 percent per annum, which Mr. Verma submits requires to be reduced relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Reliance General Insurance Company Limited vs. Shaikh Sadik Shaikh Rafique and Others (supra), I am of the view that although the interest rates / lending rate of the Reserve Bank of India, as claimed by Mr. Verma, may have reduced, however, considering the fact that the interest at the rate of 7.5 percent per annum from the date of the petition till realization has been excluded, the period of two years, and considering that, admittedly, the appellant-Insurance company has not deposited the entire decretal amount, and that, only 50% of the deposited amount was permitted to be withdrawn, it would not be in the interest of justice to now go ahead and reduce the interest. The facts in the case of Reliance General Insurance Company Limited vs. Shaikh Sadik Shaikh Rafique and Others (supra), therefore, are distinguishable and the said decision would not lend assistance to the appellant’s case. 14. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of the Tribunal, there being no error nor any perversity demonstrated. 15. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. 16. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed within a period of six weeks to deposit the balance amount of compensation in this Court and the claimants-respondents are thereafter permitted to withdraw in equal shares, the amounts lying in this Court. Registry to act accordingly.