JUDGMENT : RAVI NATH TILHARI, J. 1. Heard Sri Suri Babu Pappula, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company. No representation for the respondent-claimant. 2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the M.V Act”) was filed by the National Insurance Company Limited challenging the award dated 02.07.2019 in M.V.O.P. No. 38 of 2017 (in short “O.P”), passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge Hindupur (for short “the Tribunal”). By the said award, the claim of the claimant-respondent was partly allowed granting compensation of Rs.1,55,200/- with interest thereon @ 9% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till date of deposit. FACTS: 3. The claimants-respondent filed the aforesaid O.P. No. 38 of 2017 under Section 166 of the M.V. Act for awarding the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the grievous injuries sustained in the accident dated 05.10.2016 caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Eicher Van bearing No. AP-02-V- 5231 (in short “the offending vehicle”) which dashed against the Auto in which the claimant/respondent was travelling, from the back side, near Agrampalli Village, Hindupur at 12.30 p.m. The 2nd respondent herein (Respondent No. 1 in O.P.) was the driver-cum-owner of the Eicher Van (offending vehicle) and the appellant is the insurer. In the said accident the driver of the auto, namely Hanumanthu and one more person namely G. Ramappa died. 4. The 2nd respondent herein remained ex-parte in O.P. 5. The appellant herein (2nd respondent in O.P.) filed the written statement and denied the main averments of the claim petition. It was pleaded that the owner and insurer of the auto are necessary parties but not being impleaded claim petition was liable to be dismissed. The driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving license to drive the said vehicle. The owner alone was liable to pay compensation and the Insurance company was not liable to indemnify the insured. It was also pleaded that the offending vehicle did not possess the fitness, registration certificate and permit at the time of accident and was also not insured. The claim was said to be highly excessive and exorbitant. 6. The Tribunal framed the following issues: “(1) Whether the accident had happened on the account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Eicher Van bearing No. AP 02 V 5231? The claim was said to be highly excessive and exorbitant. 6. The Tribunal framed the following issues: “(1) Whether the accident had happened on the account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Eicher Van bearing No. AP 02 V 5231? (2) Whether the driver of the offending Eicher Van bearing No. AP 02 V 5231, possessed valid driving license as on the material date of accident? (3) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so, to what extent and from which of the respondent? (4) To what relief?” 7. On behalf of the claimant, PW-1 Khaleed and PW-2 Dr. Balaji were examined and he got marked Ex.A.1 attested copy of FIR in Cr. No. 98 of 2016 dated 05.10.2016, Ex.A.2 attested copy of charge sheet, Ex.A.3 true copy of wound certificate, Ex.A.4 medical bills 21 in number for an amount of Rs.12,202/- Ex.A.5 x-rays two in number, Ex.A.6 discharge summary, Ex.A.7 observation/patient book issued by the Victoria Hospital, Bangalore dated 20.10.2016, Ex.A.8 copy of registration certificate of the crime Eicher Van, Ex.A.9 copy of the Goods carriage permit of crime Eicher Van, Ex.A.10 copy of driving licence of R.1, Ex.A.11 attested copy of insurance policy, Ex.A.12 disability certificate, Ex.A.13 x-rays three in number. 8. On behalf of the appellant (2nd respondent in O.P.) P. Manjula was examined as RW-1 and one A. Chaitanya Kumar was examined as RW-2. Insurance company got marked Ex.B.1 authorization letter, Ex.B.2 insurance policy of offending vehicle, Ex.B.3 authorization letter and Ex.B.4 driving license of respondent No. 2 (respondent No. 1 in O.P). AWARD OF TRIBUNAL: 9. The Tribunal recorded the finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle in which the deceased died. The insurance policy of the offending vehicle was in force at the time of the accident. The driver of the offending vehicle possessed a valid driving license. The license was to drive the Light Motor Vehicle (Non Transport). He was driving the offending vehicle which was classified as Light Motor Vehicle (Transport). The contention of the insurance company that the driver did not possess a valid driving license because the offending vehicle was Light Motor Vehicle (transport) was negatived. The owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle was held liable severally and jointly with the insurance company to pay the compensation. The contention of the insurance company that the driver did not possess a valid driving license because the offending vehicle was Light Motor Vehicle (transport) was negatived. The owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle was held liable severally and jointly with the insurance company to pay the compensation. The Tribunal placed reliance in National Insurance Company vs. Swarn Singh and Others, 2004 ASJ SC (1) to hold that the offending vehicle was driven by the driver who was having valid license at the time of accident. The insurance company was liable to pay the compensation. 10. On the point of compensation, the Tribunal awarded the compensation in total Rs.1,55,200/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment. The compensation amount included the loss for permanent disability, extra nourishment and medicines, pan and suffering, transport charges and the medical expenses. 11. The claimants-respondents did not challenge the award. Only the insurance company has challenged the award. ARGUMENTS: 12. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the challenge is only on the ground that the Tribunal awarded interest @ 9% p.a. which is on the higher side. In his submission, the interest would have been @ 6% or 7.5% p.a. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though in the appeal, the plea was taken that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid driving license as his driving license was to drive Light Motor Vehicle (Non Transport) and not the license of Light Motor Vehicle (transport) which caused the accident, but, he submitted that he is not pressing that ground, in view of the law settled subsequently that, the driver having Light Motor Vehicle (non transport) shall be considered as having a valid driving license to drive Light Motor Vehicle (transport). 14. The respondents’ counsel including the claimant’s 1st respondent did not appear to argue. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION: 15. The point that arises for consideration is as under: “Whether the interest @ 9% p.a. calls for interference?” 16. We do not find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that 9% p.a. is on the higher side. 17. The Tribunal granted interest at the rate of @ 9% p.a. from the date of claim petition till payment/deposit. 18. We do not find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that 9% p.a. is on the higher side. 17. The Tribunal granted interest at the rate of @ 9% p.a. from the date of claim petition till payment/deposit. 18. In Kumari Kiran vs. Sajjan Singh and Others, (2015) 1 SCC 539 the Hon’ble Apex Court set aside the judgment of the Tribunal therein awarding interest @ 6% as also the judgment of the High Court awarding interest @ 7.5% and awarded interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the claim petition. In Rahul Sharma and Another vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others, (2021) 6 SCC 188 the Hon’ble Apex Court awarded @ 9% interest p.a. from the date of the claim petition. Also, in Kirthi and Another vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2021) 2 SCC 166 the Apex Court allowed interest @ 9% p.a. and in Smt. Anjali and Others vs. Lokendra Rathod and Others, (2022) SCC Online SC 1683 the Hon’ble Apex Court while referring to Malarvizhi and Others Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, (2020) 4 SCC 228 allowed interest @ 9% p.a. 19. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled for interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of the claim petition till realisation. 20. In the Result: (i) The appeal is dismissed. (ii) The appellant/insurance company shall deposit the amount as awarded by the Tribunal, adjusting the amount already deposited if any, before the Tribunal within one month, failing which the amount shall be recovered as per law. (iii) On such deposit being made, the claimant/respondent shall be entitled to withdraw the same as per the award of the Tribunal. (iv) The costs throughout is allowed in favour of the Claimant/respondent, and against the appellant. 21. The claimant is not represented. The Tribunal is directed to ensure service of notice on him as also that the payment is made to him preferably in his bank account attached to his Aadar number, without unnecessary delay. 22. The District Legal Services Authority of the District shall also ensure to communicate this judgment to the claimant. 23. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Tribunal and also to the District Legal Services Authority of the District. 24. 22. The District Legal Services Authority of the District shall also ensure to communicate this judgment to the claimant. 23. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Tribunal and also to the District Legal Services Authority of the District. 24. The Tribunal shall submit a report to this Court, through the Registrar (Judicial) on the above aspect, which shall be placed on the record of this appeal. 25. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall also stand closed.