JUDGMENT : Heard Smt. A.Jayanthi, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company. None appeared for the respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimant Nos.1 to 3 though, posted under the caption ‘For Judgment’. 2. This appeal directed by the appellant/respondent No.2/Insurance Company challenging the Order and Decree dated 06.11.2009 passed in M.V.O.P.No.6 of 2005 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kurnool (hereinafter referred to ‘Tribunal’). 3. Parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the proceedings before the learned Tribunal, for the sake of convenience. 4. The claim petition was filed under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity ‘the Act’) claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of one Balija Gajula Padmavathi (hereinafter referred as ‘deceased’) in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 24.03.2003 at about 9.30 AM. 5. The case of the claimant is that on 24.03.2003 at about 9.00 AM, the deceased along with other boarded the tractor-cum-trailer bearing registration No.AP21T 6558 and AP21T 1262 near Yerraguntla village to go to her village; when the tractor-cum-trailer reached a place near Chinna Malkapuram village; a lorry bearing registration No.AP21T0128 (hereinafter referred as ‘offending vehicle) came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the tractor-cum-trailer; as a result, the deceased sustained injuries and died; Dhone Police Station registered a case in Crime No.52 of 2003 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’); the deceased was aged 25 years and doing coolie works, she was earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month; the claimants are dependants of the deceased; the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent No.2/Insurance Company on the date of accident. Therefore, the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 6. The 1st respondent died pending the petition. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 remained ex parte. 7. Therefore, the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 6. The 1st respondent died pending the petition. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 remained ex parte. 7. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed counter contending that the 1st respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle and same was insured with the respondent No.2/Insurance Company and that, policy was in force on the date of accident; the policy was issued after death of the respondent No.1; the death of the respondent No.1 was not informed to the respondent No.2/Insurance Company at the time of taking policy; the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor-cum-trailer; the tractor-cum-trailer belongs to the son of the deceased; the involvement of the offending vehicle in the impugned accident is false; the owner of the tractor-cum-Trailor in collusion with the owner of the offending vehicle, filed the claim petition; the registered owner of the offending vehicle M.Suryanarayana died on 17.12.1997, but respondent Nos.1 and 2 and another legal heirs did not choose to transfer the vehicle to their name; the legal heirs of M.Suryanarayana suppressed the material facts and obtained the policy by playing fraud; therefore, there was no existing contract between the respondent No.2/Insurance Company and the respondent No.1/owner of the offending vehicle on the date of issuance of policy; the amount of compensation claimed is excessive. 8. The respondent No.3 filed memo adopting the counter of respondent No.6. 9. 8. The respondent No.3 filed memo adopting the counter of respondent No.6. 9. The respondent No.6 filed counter contending that the offending lorry stood in the name of respondent No.1/late M.Suryanarayana; he is the brother of respondent No.6, husband of respondent No.3 and father of respondent Nos.4 and 4; the respondent No.1 was the insurer of the offending vehicle died in a road accident occurred on 16.12.1997; He obtained personal accident policy for Rs.5,00,000/- from respondent No.2/Insurance Company; after death of the respondent No.1, the respondent No.2 paid the amount under the personal accident policy to the respondent No.3; after death of respondent No.1, the respondent Nos.3 to 6 paid renewal premium amount and informed the respondent No.2 about the death of respondent No.1; the respondent No.2/Insurance Company asked them to pay premium in the name of M.Surayanarayana; the offending vehicle was transferred in the name of respondent No.6 on 24.03.2003 and the same was also intimated to the respondent No.2; the respondent No.2/Insurance Company accepted the renewal insurance premium from year to year knowing fully well about the death of respondent No.1. Hence, the respondent No.2/Insurance Company has to indemnify the liability of the insurer. 10. The learned Tribunal, basing on the rival contentions, framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the accident dated 24.03.2003 took place near Yerraguntla village at about 9.30 AM was due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing registration No.AP21T 0128? 2. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 3. Whether the respondents are liable to pay the compensation claimed, if not, what amount they are liable to pay to the petitioners, by virtue of the said accident? 4. To what relief? 11. During enquiry, on behalf of claimant, the 1st claimant was examined herself as P.W.1 and got exhibited four (04) documents as Ex.A1 to Ex.A4. On behalf of the respondent No.2/Insurance Company, the Administrative Officer of the said insurance company was examined as R.W.1 and the 6th respondent i.e., brother of the deceased was examined as R.W.2 and eight (08) documents were marked on their behalf. 12. The learned Tribunal, considering the evidence on issue No.1 held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry i.e., offending vehicle, resulted in the death of the deceased. 13. 12. The learned Tribunal, considering the evidence on issue No.1 held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry i.e., offending vehicle, resulted in the death of the deceased. 13. The Tribunal, on issue No.2 held that in view of the finding on issue No.1, the owner and insurer of the Tractor-cum-Trailer are not necessary parties to the petitioner. On issue No.3, the learned Tribunal held that the claimants are entitled to Rs.2,28,000/- towards just and reasonable compensation. The Tribunal further held that the respondent No.2/Insurance Company has to indemnify the liability of the respondent No.6 and made the respondent Nos.2 to 6 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 14. The respondent No.2 i.e., the Insurance Company filed the appeal mainly challenging the finding of the learned Tribunal on the aspect that the respondent No.2/Insurance Company shall indemnify the liability of the respondent No.6 and that, the respondent No.2/Insurance Company is jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants. 15. Smt. A.Jayanthi, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company would contend that the learned Tribunal failed to note that the respondent No.1 died five years prior to the date of accident, but the policy was renewed by the legal heirs of the deceased 1st respondent without disclosing the fact of death of the owner of the vehicle and therefore, on account of the death of respondent No.1, there is no valid contract between the respondent No.2/Insurance Company and legal heirs of the deceased policy holder and further, after death of the insured, the policy was cancelled vide Ex.B6 and hence, there is no policy coverage on the date of accident and in that view of the matter, the respondent No.2/Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insurer i.e., owner of the vehicle. 16. Considering the above rival contentions, the points that would arise for consideration in this appeal are as under: 1. Whether the Order and Decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kurnool in M.V.O.P. No.6 of 2005 vide Order and Decree dated 06.11.2009 warrants interference of this Court? 2. To what relief? POINT NO.1: 17. 16. Considering the above rival contentions, the points that would arise for consideration in this appeal are as under: 1. Whether the Order and Decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kurnool in M.V.O.P. No.6 of 2005 vide Order and Decree dated 06.11.2009 warrants interference of this Court? 2. To what relief? POINT NO.1: 17. The learned tribunal basing on the evidence on issue No.3 held that the oral testimony of R.W.1 and R.W.2 would establish that the respondent No.1 died on 17.12.1997 and that, the evidence of R.W.1 and R.W.2 would further establish that legal heirs of the deceased 1st respondent and R.W.2 got renewed the insurance policy for the offending vehicle from time to time in the name of deceased 1st respondent. Therefore, there is no dispute with regard to renewal of the insurance policy in the name of the respondent No.1 even after death. 18. R.W.1, the Official of the respondent No.2/Insurance Company deposed that respondent Nos.3 to 5 obtained the renewal policy in the name of 1st respondent by playing fraud. Now the question is whether fraud was played on the insurance company for renewal? 19. The evidence of R.W.2 would disclose that the respondent No.1 had also obtained a personal accident policy also, for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- apart from the impugned motor vehicle policy during his life time. The evidence would further establish that the respondent No.2 i.e., appellant insurance company settled the claim amount under the personal accident policy after death of the respondent No.1. R.W.1 admitted the said fact. The learned Tribunal observed that as per Ex.B3/letter, dated 03.03.1998, the respondent No.2/Insurance Company was supplied with necessary documents vide Ex.B3 to Ex.B7, and appellant/Insurance Company paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondent No.3 after death of the respondent No.1. Therefore, the learned Tribunal observed that it can be presumed that the insurance company renewed the policy from time to time in the name of respondent No.1 having knowledge that respondent No.1 died. Therefore, alleged fraud pleaded by the appellant is not true. In that view of the matter, the contention of the respondent No.2/Insurance Company that respondent Nos.3 to 6 played fraud would fail. It cannot take advantage of its own act/mistake to avoid its liability towards legal representatives, who were allowed to renew the policy in the name of the deceased owner of the vehicle. 20. In that view of the matter, the contention of the respondent No.2/Insurance Company that respondent Nos.3 to 6 played fraud would fail. It cannot take advantage of its own act/mistake to avoid its liability towards legal representatives, who were allowed to renew the policy in the name of the deceased owner of the vehicle. 20. Further, as rightly observed by the learned Tribunal, it is a known fact that no one will play fraud on another, unless there is some monetary benefit. In the instant case, the respondent Nos.3 to 6 will not get any monetary benefit by renewing the policy in the name of the respondent No.1. In those circumstances, there are no grounds to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal. 21. Smt. A.Jayanthi, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company would submit that the learned Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation amount and contended that it may be scaled down to 7.5% p.a., considering prevailing rate of interest at the material point in time. 22. Admittedly, the accident was occurred on 24.03.2003. Considering the prevailing rate of interest at the relevant point in time and in view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Mannat Johal, 2019 ACJ 1849 (SC) this Court is of the opinion that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal be scale down to 7.5% per annum from 9% per annum. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered. POINT NO.2: 23. In the light of finding on point No.1, the appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.4279 of 2012 is liable to be ‘Partly Allowed’. 24. IN THE RESULT, the Appeal is ‘Partly Allowed’ modifying the Order and Decree dated 06.11.2009 passed in M.V.O.P.No.6 of 2005 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kurnool, with respect to the rate of interest fixed by the learned Tribunal on the compensation amount at 9% per annum to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Rest of the order and decree shall remain intact. 25. The respondent No.2/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest at 7.5% from the date of the petition till the date of deposit, within eight (08) weeks from the date of the judgment. 26. Rest of the order and decree shall remain intact. 25. The respondent No.2/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest at 7.5% from the date of the petition till the date of deposit, within eight (08) weeks from the date of the judgment. 26. On such deposit, the respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount along with accrued interest thereon as ordered by the learned Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.