JUDGMENT : This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) challenging the Order dated 03.02.2001, delivered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), in M.O.P.No.452 of 1998, whereby, the claimants have been awarded the compensation of Rs.50,000/- holding that all the opponents are jointly and severally liable to pay the same with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, with costs of the petition. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal in the claim petition. 3. The factual context of the case is as under : (a) On 16.12.1997, when Bayya Gangaraju (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) and his friend were going to Regidi Village from Srikakulam on LML Vespa scooter bearing No.AP 35 7789 and when they reached near Kollivalasa Village at about 3.30 p.m., the scooter fell into a ditch, due to the failure of brake wires, as a result of which, the said deceased-Gangaraju and his friend fell down. The deceased-Gangaraju sustained severe injuries and immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Srikakulam, and from there, shifted to K.G.H., Visakhapatnam. While undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries on 20.12.1997. The matter was reported to Police, alleging that the accident took place as a result of the failure of the brake wires of LML Vespa scooter bearing No.AP 35 7789 and based on the complaint lodged by Vesinigiri Srinu, who was the pillion rider, a case in Crime No.84 of 1997 for the offence under Sections 338 and 337 IPC of Burja Police Station, Srikakulam District, was registered and investigated into the matter by the Police. (b) The petitioners 1 and 2, who are the parents of the deceased, filed an application before the Tribunal claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.50,000/-, on account of the death of their son for no fault. (b) The petitioners 1 and 2, who are the parents of the deceased, filed an application before the Tribunal claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.50,000/-, on account of the death of their son for no fault. (c) The 1st respondent-owner of the scooter bearing No.AP 35 7789 filed a counter contending inter alia that, the deceased was an authorized mechanic of Kamalapriya Auto and General Agencies, Vizianagaram, that the said scooter was given for repairs to the said agency, that they did not attend the repairs properly, and that the same was brought to the notice of the said agency and again the scooter was given for repairs on 16.12.1997, and the same was not returned, this respondent informed the same to the said agency in writing, and on enquiry came to know that the deceased-Gangaraju, who attended the repairs of the scooter met with an accident and the accident was due to the fault of the deceased. The amounts claimed by the petitioners are excessive, and prayed to dismiss the petition. (d) The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company filed a counter contending inter alia that the deceased, who drove the vehicle at the time of the accident, was not having a valid driving licence and he violated the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, and that this respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants and the amounts claimed by them are excessive, and prayed for dismissal of the petition. (e) In view of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues : (1) Whether the accident and the death of deceased-Bayya Gangaraju are due to the failure of break wire of scooter (LML Vespa) AP 35 7789 ? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation, if so, from which of the respondents ? (3) To what relief? (f) During the course of the trial, in order to establish their claim, the 1st claimant was examined as P.W.1, and Exs.A.1 to A.3 were got marked on behalf of the petitioners. The-then Branch Manager of the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.B.1 was got marked on behalf of the 2nd respondent. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the 1st respondent, before the Tribunal. The-then Branch Manager of the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.B.1 was got marked on behalf of the 2nd respondent. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the 1st respondent, before the Tribunal. (g) On appreciation of the evidence of P.W.1, and placing reliance on Exs.A.1 to A.3 and Ex.B.1, the learned Tribunal came to a conclusion that, the 1st respondent is the owner and the 2nd respondent is the insurer of the vehicle bearing No.AP 35 7789. The information shall have to be furnished by claimants in their claim petition that the respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the vehicle bearing No.AP 35 7789 is sufficient to award compensation and Exs.A.1 to A.3 clearly disclose that as the accident was occurred only due to use of the motor vehicle and that the Insurance Company is certainly liable to pay the compensation under Section 140 of the M.V.Act, for no fault of the deceased-B.Gangaraju. Accordingly, petition was allowed awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioners with costs and with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of petition till realization against Respondents 1 and 2 and they are jointly and severally liable. (h) On appreciation of evidence, following compensation was awarded by the Tribunal. S. No. Head of Compensation Amount of compensation awarded 1. No fault of the deceased awarded compensation under Section 140 of the M.V.Act. Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum (i) Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said Award, the Insurance Company, being the appellant herein, has challenged the said Award on the following grounds. (i) The Tribunal ought to have seen that the rider of the motorcycle was not having a valid driving licence. (ii) The insurance policy does not cover the risk of the rider of the scooter and the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company has to be exonerated from its liability. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would submit that the interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the interest on the awarded amount may be reduced. 5. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would submit that the interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the interest on the awarded amount may be reduced. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants would submit that the amount of compensation and the interest thereon awarded by the Tribunal were arrived at by taking the relevant factors into consideration and the amount awarded, is just and reasonable and was absolutely justified. Accordingly the award under appeal warrants no interference. 6. In the light of the above rival arguments, the point for determination in this appeal is : Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the interest thereon, is just and reasonable, or needs interference? 7. POINT: Undisputedly, the deceased-Bayya Gangaraju, who was the rider and V. Srinu, who was the pillion rider, while going on the motor cycle bearing No.AP 35 7789, towards Regidi from Srikakulam, and when they reached near Kollivalasa, due to the failure of the brake wires, the said scooter fell into a ditch, as a result, both the rider and the pillion rider sustained injuries. While undergoing treatment, the rider of the vehicle, who is the deceased-Bayya Gangaraju succumbed to injuries on 20.12.1997. To substantiate their plea to cause death of no fault of deceased, Ex.A.3 certified copy of the M.V.I. Report strengthens the case of the claimants to award compensation under Section 140 of the M.V.Act for "no fault liability". At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the provisions of Section 140 of the M.V.Act. 140. Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault.— (1) Where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the vehicle shall, or, as the case may be, the owners of the vehicles shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with the provisions of this section. (2) The amount of compensation which shall be payable under sub-section (1) in respect of the death of any person shall be a fixed sum of 1[fifty thousand rupees] and the amount of compensation payable under that sub-section in respect of the permanent disablement of any person shall be a fixed sum of 2[twenty-five thousand rupees]. (3) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or owners of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. (4) A claim for compensation under sub-section (1) shall not be defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person in respect of whose death or permanent disablement the claim has been made nor shall the quantum of compensation recoverable in respect of such death or permanent disablement be reduced on the basis of the share of such person in the responsibility for such death or permanent disablement. 3[(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) regarding death or bodily injury to any person, for which the owner of the vehicle is liable to give compensation for relief, he is also liable to pay compensation under any other law for the time being in force: Provided that the amount of such compensation to be given under any other law shall be reduced from the amount of compensation payable under this section or under section 163A.]” 8. In the light of the above provisions, the amount of compensation in respect of the death of any person for "no fault liability", shall be fixed at a sum of Rs.50,000/-. In Ex.A.3 Certified Copy of the M.V.I Report in Cr.No.84 of 1997 of Burja Police Station at Column No.8, it is mentioned as follows : Column No.8 Details regarding the damages sustained by the vehicle or vehicle due to accident. 1. Front mud guard damaged. 2. Left side dickey cover bend. 3. Front wheel brake lever half-rice broken. 9. On perusal of Ex.A.3-M.V.I.Report, it clearly discloses that, due to failure of brake wires, the said motorcycle fell into the ditch, the rider of the motorcycle sustained injuries and died while undergoing treatment. 1. Front mud guard damaged. 2. Left side dickey cover bend. 3. Front wheel brake lever half-rice broken. 9. On perusal of Ex.A.3-M.V.I.Report, it clearly discloses that, due to failure of brake wires, the said motorcycle fell into the ditch, the rider of the motorcycle sustained injuries and died while undergoing treatment. Therefore, Section 140 of the M.V.Act came to the rescue of the claimants for awarding compensation under “no fault liability”. Considering the evidence of P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.3, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- under Section 140 of the M.V.Act for no fault of the deceased-B.Gangaraju, is just and reasonable. 10. The another point raised by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that the rider (deceased) of the motorcycle did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation under "no fault liability". 11. In a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ali & Another Vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu & Another, (2022) 1 SCC 317 , at Para No.17, it was held as follows : “…………..The entire compensation shall be paid to the appellants by Respondent 2 insurance company, and we keep it open to the insurance company to recover the same from Respondent 1 owner of the motorcycle by initiating appropriate proceedings as the motorcycle was driven by the driver who was not possessing valid driving licence on the date of the accident.” 12. In the instant case, the onus would shift on the Insurance Company to prove that the rider of the motorcycle was not having a valid driving licence at the relevant point of time. At least, the Insurance Company would have taken summons for production of licence history sheet of the deceased etc. But, they have not taken any steps to summon the R.T.A for production of licence particulars of the deceased. Except the oral testimony of R.W.1, there is no evidence to prove that the rider of the motorcycle was not holding a valid driving licence. But, they have not taken any steps to summon the R.T.A for production of licence particulars of the deceased. Except the oral testimony of R.W.1, there is no evidence to prove that the rider of the motorcycle was not holding a valid driving licence. Even in the M.V.I report under Ex.A.3 in Column No.7 it is mentioned that “collection of compound fee under Section 200 of the M.V.Act” and mere collection of compounding fees under Section 200 of the M.V.Act as per M.V.I Report itself does not show that the driver was not holding any valid driving licence by the date of accident. Even otherwise, in the light of the above decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the appellant-Insurance Company cannot escape from its liability to pay the compensation. 13. Further, in the present case, the Insurance Company has taken a plea that the policy does not cover the risk of the rider of the scooter. On perusal of Ex.B.1/Office copy of the Insurance Policy, the vehicle bearing No.AP 35 7789 was covered by the policy at the time of the accident and it strengthens the case of the petitioners that LML Vespa Scooter bearing No.AP 35 7789 was covered with the Insurance Policy at the relevant time. Therefore, the motorcycle bearing No.AP 35 7789 is covered by the risk under Ex.B.1/ Insurance Policy at the relevant point of time. Therefore, the petitioners/claimants are entitled to claim compensation. 14. In a decision reported in Kaushnuma Begum & Others Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and Others, 2001 (2) SCC 9 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India at Para 20 held as follows : “No Fault Liability envisaged in Section 140 of the MV Act is distinguishable from the rule of strict liability. In the former the compensation amount is fixed and is payable even if any one of the exceptions to the Rule can be applied. It is a statutory liability created without which the claimant should not get any amount under that count. Compensation on account of accident arising from the use of motor vehicles can be claimed under the common law even without the aid of a statute. The provisions of the MV Act permits that compensation paid under no fault liability………” 15. It is a statutory liability created without which the claimant should not get any amount under that count. Compensation on account of accident arising from the use of motor vehicles can be claimed under the common law even without the aid of a statute. The provisions of the MV Act permits that compensation paid under no fault liability………” 15. On perusal of the above decision, it is crystal clear that the compensation on account of accident arising from the use of motor vehicle can be claimed under the common law even without the aid of a statute. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to get compensation under Section 140 of the M.V.Act. 16. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is a beneficial legislation, which has been framed with an object of providing relief to the victims, or their families, in case of a genuine claim. In case where the parents have lost their child, the parents are entitled to be awarded just and reasonable compensation. In the instant case, the learned counsel for the appellant has not disputed the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal of a sum of Rs.50,000/- under Section 140 of the M.V.Act under "no fault liability", but he sought to reduce the interest on the awarded amount of compensation. The learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the petition till realization. 17. Therefore, this Court is considered the question of fixing the rate of interest under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act which empowers the Tribunal to 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 may be specified in this behalf. Earlier, 12% was found to be the reasonable rate of simple interest. With a change in economy and the policy of Reserve Bank of India, the rate of interest has been lowered. The nationalized banks are now granting interest @ 9% per annum on fixed deposits for one year. This Court, therefore, directs that the compensation amount fixed hereinbefore shall bear interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the claim made by the claimants, instead of interest @ 12% per annum. 18. The nationalized banks are now granting interest @ 9% per annum on fixed deposits for one year. This Court, therefore, directs that the compensation amount fixed hereinbefore shall bear interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the claim made by the claimants, instead of interest @ 12% per annum. 18. Therefore, award of interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization would be reasonable and as such, the claimants are held to be entitled to receive the compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum as mentioned above. 19. In the result, the appeal is disposed of accordingly in the aforesaid terms and conditions, with costs throughout. (i) it is directed that the compensation amount fixed hereinbefore shall bear interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the claim made by the claimants till realization. (ii) the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation awarded within one month from the date of this Judgment, failing which, execution can be taken out against it. (iii) the amount, if any, paid to the claimants, shall be deducted from the principal amount as on the date of its payment and interest would be recalculated on the balance amount of the principal sum from such date. (iv) once such deposit is made, the same shall be disbursed to the claimants in accordance with the principles laid down in General Manager of Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas (Smt.) and others, (1994) 2 SCC 176 . As a sequel, interlocutory application(s) pending for consideration, if any, shall stand closed.