ORDER : Heard Sri Gudi Srinivasulu, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri T. Rama Sharana Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents appearing through virtual mode. 2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed challenging the Award dated 29.11.2018 of the MACT in M.V.O.P.No.363 of 2013. 3. The appellant is Reliance General Insurance Limited represented by its Branch Manager, Visakhapatnam. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the claimants. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed M.V.O.P.No.363 of 2013 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short, M.V. Act) claiming compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- on account of the death of Ponga Tirupathi, husband of the respondent No.1 and father of the respondent Nos.2 and 3, in Motor Accident which took place on 29.09.2012 near Bangalavalasa Village, Sunkara Metta Panchaithi, Arakuvally within the jurisdiction limits of Arakuvally Police Station, Visakhapatnam District. 4. The case of the claimant/respondents was that the deceased aged about 38 years was working as employee/technician in Indian Railways, Visakhapatnam Divison earning Rs.19,855/- P.M. by the date of death. On 29.09.2012 he was going to Araku Valley from Vizianagaram on his motor bike bearing No.AP 31 X 3942 and the driver of the offending vehicle while coming from the opposite direction, Araku Valley to Visakhapatnam City, driving in a high speed and in negligent manner dashed the motor bike of the deceased, due to which, the deceased and the claimant/respondent No.1 fell down and sustained injuries. They were shifted to Srungavarapu Kota Hospital where Ponga Tirupathi was declared as dead. The case Crime No.80 of 2012 under Section 304-A and 337 of IPC was registered against the driver/ respondent No.4. The claimants claimed compensation against the respondent Nos.4 and 5 and the appellant herein. 5. The respondent Nos.4 and 5 (respondent Nos.1 and 2 in M.V.O.P) remained exparte. 6. The appellant (respondent No.3 in M.V.O.P) filed counter inter alia submitting that the claimants shall prove their relationship with the deceased, his age, income and their entitlement for the claim amount. They shall also prove that the accident took place in the manner as claimed by them; the negligence of the driver, the valid driving licence at the time of the accident with the driver and that he was working under the owner of the offending vehicle. They shall also prove that the accident took place in the manner as claimed by them; the negligence of the driver, the valid driving licence at the time of the accident with the driver and that he was working under the owner of the offending vehicle. The claimants shall also prove that there were no violations of the conditions of the terms of the policy. Plea was also taken that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased, and that the insurer of the bike on which the deceased was travelling was not impleaded. The amount of compensation claimed was said as excessive. 7. The MACT, Visakhapatnam framed the following issues and additional issues in Para No.5 of the Award which reads as under:- “5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues and additional are settled for trial: 1. Whether the deceased was died in the motor accident occurred on 29.09.2012 due to rash and negligent act of driver of jeep bearing No.AP 31 X 3942 ? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the Respondents ? 3. Whether the case is non-joinder of necessary party ? 4. To what relief ?” 8. The claimants examined PW.1 to PW.3 and filed Ex.A1 to A7, besides Ex.X1 to Ex.X4, in support of their claim. Exs.A1 to A7 are FIR, Post mortem report, MVI report, Computer printout of Form-16 of the deceased, Pay slip of deceased, True copy of family members certificate and Driving licence issued in the name of Tirupathi, respectively. Ex.X1 to X4 are Mr. P. Tirupathi while working as Technician Gr.I died on 29.09.2012, Attested copy of legal heir certificate, Pay particulars of deceased and Annual pay slip of deceased. 9. The appellant (respondent No.3 in MVOP) did not adduce any evidence but on his behalf Ex.B1 (Policy Copy) was marked by consent. 10. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal allowed the claim petition on 29.11.2018. The Tribunal recorded the finding on issue No.1, that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal rejected the contention of the appellant that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. On issue No.2, the claimants were held entitled for the compensation. The Tribunal recorded the finding on issue No.1, that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal rejected the contention of the appellant that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. On issue No.2, the claimants were held entitled for the compensation. It awarded compensation of Rs.39,52,810/- with interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of the petition till the date of the payment, against the appellant and the respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein with joint and several liability. The Tribunal also made apportionment of the compensation amount amongst the claimants. The operative portion of the Tribunal?s award is as under:- “13. In the result, petition is allowed with proportionate costs awarding compensation of Rs.39,52,810/- with interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of the petition till the date of the payment against R1 to 3 with joint and several liability; that 1st petitioner is apportioned compensation of Rs.14,52,810/-; Petitioners 2 and 3 are apportioned Rs.12,50,000/- each; 1st petitioner is entitled to withdraw the entire amount with accrued interest after deposit of the amount; that the apportioned amount of Rs.12,50,000/- each of the petitioners 2 and 3 with accrued interest shall be deposited in any nationalized bank till they attain majority and thereafter permitted to receive the same; that the time for deposit of compensation is one month; and that Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-.” 11. Learned counsel for the appellant raised the following submissions:- i) that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The Tribunal erred in holding that there was no contributory negligence. He submitted that it was head on collusion and took us to the evidence of PW.1 in cross examination which shall be referred while considering this argument to contend that, that evidence proved the contributory negligence of the deceased. ii) that the Tribunal has awarded 9% interest which is on the higher side. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the finding that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased is correct. There was no evidence to prove the appellant?s case of contributory negligence. He submitted that the evidence of PW.1 in the cross examination as referred by the learned counsel for the appellant also does not prove any contributory negligence of the deceased. 13. There was no evidence to prove the appellant?s case of contributory negligence. He submitted that the evidence of PW.1 in the cross examination as referred by the learned counsel for the appellant also does not prove any contributory negligence of the deceased. 13. On the second submission, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the interest @ 9% is not on the higher side. In many cases the interest @ 9% has been awarded which has been upheld. 14. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. 15. The following points arise for determination:- A. Whether there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased ? B. Whether the award of interest @ 9% is on the higher side ? 16. On the point of contributory negligence, the Tribunal observed that the appellant did not examine the driver of the offending vehicle to prove that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Any eye witness was also not examined. Rough sketch was also not filed to show that the accident took place in the middle of the road and due to the negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles. Even no suggestion was given to PW.1 that the accident took place in the middle of the road or that the motor cycle of the deceased was on the wrong side. The Tribunal also observed that on the ground that the accident took place, head on collusion, no conclusion can be drawn about the contributory negligence. Several exhibits are necessary to arrive at such conclusion and in the absence of any proof the contributory negligence could not be attributed to the deceased. The Tribunal also considered the judgment in the case of Renukadevi H. Etc vs. Bangalore Metropolitan TPT Corporation Etc., 2003 (1) CCC 322 (NS) as also the case of Agnurujaya Ramulu vs. Mohammed Afzal Miyan and another, 2006 ACJ 855 . 17. The evidence of PW.1 in cross examination which was referred by the learned counsel for the appellant during arguments to submit that there was contributory negligence reads as under:- “1. At the time of accident my husband was driving the bike and I was the pillion driver. 17. The evidence of PW.1 in cross examination which was referred by the learned counsel for the appellant during arguments to submit that there was contributory negligence reads as under:- “1. At the time of accident my husband was driving the bike and I was the pillion driver. It is not true to suggest that the deceased was not holding driving licence that the accident occurred only due to his negligence, that there was no negligence for the accident on behalf of R1 at all, that the deceased was aged more than 40 years, that Ex.A4 and A5 are created for the purpose of the case. So far I did not file the driving licence of my husband in court including proof of the date of birth. Names of my parents in law is not mentioned in Ex.A6. Witness volunteers that they are not alive. It is true there is no mention in Ex.A6 that they have pre deceased my husband. Now I am doing job in the Railways given on compassionate grounds. Besides salary I am drawing family pension. I do not know that as per Ex.A3 the offending vehicle was not having fitness certificate, that fine was imposed on the incharge of the vehicle, after vehicle check report. It is not true to suggest that as R1 and R2 plying the transport vehicle without fitness certificate on the roads, R3 is not liable to pay any compensation and that R1 and 2 alone are having such liability.” 18. The aforesaid evidence of PW.1 in our view does not support the case of the appellant of contributory negligence of the deceased. PW.1 deposed: “it is not true to suggest ……… that there was no negligence for the accident on behalf of R1 at all ……….”. Learned counsel for the appellant appears to have misread the same as: “…….. that there was no negligence for the accident on behalf of the R1 at all ……….”. R1 in the claim petition is the driver. Based on such misreading of the PW.1 in cross examination the argument was advanced that PW.1 (Claimant No.1) admitted that there was no negligence of the driver (R1) of the offending vehicle. This is not correct reading. The deposition in cross examination starts from: “…… it is not true to suggest that ……..”. Based on such misreading of the PW.1 in cross examination the argument was advanced that PW.1 (Claimant No.1) admitted that there was no negligence of the driver (R1) of the offending vehicle. This is not correct reading. The deposition in cross examination starts from: “…… it is not true to suggest that ……..”. No other evidence could be brought to our notice even to suggest that the finding of the Tribunal is perverse or based on ignoring the material evidence. 19. In A.G.M. Uttarakhand State Road Transport Corporation, Kotdwar vs. Ram Sumer Singh & others, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench held that there can be no Rule of thumb that a head on collision must always be taken as a resultant to contributory negligence of both vehicles. It depends on facts of each case which are required to be proved like any other fact. A finding of contributory negligence turns on a factual investigation whether the deceased contributed to his or her own loss by failing to take reasonable care of his or her own person or property. What is reasonable care depends on the circumstances of the case. There are variable factors in determining whether contributory negligence exists and if so, to what degree. The breach or failure on the part of the deceased, if any, has to be proved by the Insurance Company, as it was its burden to prove that. 20. It is apt to refer Paragraph Nos.23 to 28 of A.G.M. Uttarakhand State Road Transport Corporation (surpa) as under:- “23. On point no. 2, the submission of Ms. Pooja Arora is that in view of the site plan, there was contributory negligence of the deceased, which was not considered by the Tribunal. 24. There can be no Rule of thumb that a head on collision must always be taken as resultant to contributory negligence of both vehicles. It depends on facts of each case which are required to be proved like any other fact. A finding of contributory negligence turns on a factual investigation whether the deceased contributed to his or her own loss by failing to take reasonable care of his or her own person or property. What is reasonable care, depends on the circumstances of the case. There are variable factors in determining whether contributory negligence exists, and if so, to what degree. What is reasonable care, depends on the circumstances of the case. There are variable factors in determining whether contributory negligence exists, and if so, to what degree. The breach or failure on the part of the deceased, if any, has to be proved by the Insurance Company, as it was its burden to prove that. 25. The Tribunal has recorded finding on Issue no. 1 that the driver of the appellant's bus was negligent. The accident was caused as resultant to a rash driving of the Bus. Nothing could be pointed out even from the evidence of P.W. 1 or P.W. 2 that there was any negligence on the part of the driver of the Maruti Car which contributed, to the happening of the accident. As mentioned above, no oral evidence was produced to prove that fact. The Insurance Company failed to discharge its burden. 26. So far as the site plan, prepared by the Police is concerned, it only has its face value for the purpose of satisfaction of the Tribunal in the summary proceedings for the purpose of determination of compensation, as has beeen observed in the case of Smt. Meena (supra), upon which reliance was placed by Ms. Pooja Arora. Merely on the basis of the site plan, the finding of contributory negligence cannot be arrived, as for determining contributory negligence, various factors are required to be proved. The site plan may prove the spot of accident, where the vehicle colluded but that by itself cannot prove the contributory negligence, as the possibility of the vehicles, in the accident going to a wrong direction or side during accident cannot be ruled out. The contributory negligence has to be proved by positive evidence and it would not be safe to draw inference merely on the basis of site plan. 27. In the case of Usha Rajkhowa and Others vs. Paramount Industries and Others [ (2009) 14 SCC 71 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph nos. 20, 21 & 22, as under:- "20. The question of contributory negligence on the part of the driver in case of collision was considered by this Court in Pramodkumar Rasikbhai Jhaveri v. Karmasey Kunvargi Tak [ (2002) 6 SCC 455 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1355] . That was also a case of collision between a car and a truck. It was observed in SCC p. 458, para 8: ''8. ... That was also a case of collision between a car and a truck. It was observed in SCC p. 458, para 8: ''8. ... The question of contributory negligence arises when there has been some act or omission on the claimant's part, which has materially contributed to the damage caused, and is of such a nature that it may properly be described as ''negligence'. Negligence ordinarily means breach of a legal duty to care, but when used in the expression ''contributory negligence' it does not mean breach of any duty. It only means the failure by a person to use reasonable care for the safety of either himself or his property, so that he becomes blameworthy in part as an ''author of his own wrong'.' 21. This Court further relied on an observation of the High Court of Australia in Astley v. Austrust Ltd. [(1999) 73 ALJR 403] to the following effect: ''A finding of contributory negligence turns on a factual investigation whether the plaintiff contributed to his or her own loss by failing to take reasonable care of his or her person or property. What is reasonable care depends on the circumstances of the case. In many cases, it may be proper for a plaintiff to rely on the defendant to perform its duty. But there is no absolute rule. The duties and responsibilities of the defendant are a variable factor in determining whether contributory negligence exists and, if so, to what degree. In some cases, the nature of the duty owed may exculpate the plaintiff from a claim of contributory negligence; in other cases, the nature of the duty may reduce the plaintiff's share of responsibility for the damage suffered; and in yet other cases, the nature of the duty may not prevent a finding that the plaintiff failed to take reasonable care for the safety of his or her person or property. Contributory negligence focuses on the conduct of the plaintiff. The duty owed by the defendant, although relevant, is one only of many factors that must be weighed in determining whether the plaintiff has so conducted itself that it failed to take reasonable care for the safety of its person or property.' 22. Contributory negligence focuses on the conduct of the plaintiff. The duty owed by the defendant, although relevant, is one only of many factors that must be weighed in determining whether the plaintiff has so conducted itself that it failed to take reasonable care for the safety of its person or property.' 22. Keeping these principles in mind, we find that there was absolutely no evidence to suggest that there was any failure on the part of the car driver to take any particular care or that he had breached his duty in any manner. Such breach on his part had to be proved by the insurance company as it was its burden and for that, the panchnama of the spot, showing tyre marks caused by brakes, and the panchnama of the damaged car and the truck could have been brought on record. The insurance company has obviously failed to discharge its burden. We, therefore, respectfully follow the abovementioned judgment." 28. In Bijoy Kumar Dugar (supra), the accident was head on collision but, there, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, had, on the basis of evidence and material on record, recorded a finding of contributory negligence. In the present case, finding is that the Driver of the Bus was negligent. The judgment in Bijoy Kumar Dugar (supra) is of no help to the appellant.” 21. In New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Ram Narain and another, 2013 SCC OnLine P&H 15780, it was observed that “a head on collision in all circumstances cannot spell out contributory negligence. It is to be seen as to on which part of the road, the accident took place”. 22. In New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Ram Partap and others, 2013 SCC Online Del 4340, also it was observed in Para No.4 that “every head on collision cannot be said to be a contributory negligence until and unless it is specifically investigated or proved by the opposite party that drivers of both the vehicles were equally responsible for the said accident”. 23. 23. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M/s. National Insurance Company Limited vs. E. Suseelamma, M.A.C.M.A.No.945 of 2013, decided on 04.08.2023, on the point of contributory negligence referred to the judgment of Hon?ble the Apex Court in the case of Usha Rajkhowa and others vs. Paramount Industries and others, (2009) 14 SCC 71 , in which the Hon?ble Apex Court observed and held that the question of contributory negligence arises when there has been some act or omission on the claimant's part, which has materially contributed to the damage caused, and is of such a nature that it may properly be described as 'negligence'. Negligence ordinarily means breach of a legal duty to care, but when used in the expression 'contributory negligence' it does not mean breach of any duty. It only means the failure by a person to use reasonable care for the safety of either himself or his property, so that he becomes blameworthy in part as an „author of his own wrong?. 24. In the aforesaid case it was also observed and held that the standard of proof in Motor Accident Claim Cases is one of preponderance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt. 25. It is apt to refer paragraph Nos.37 to 40 of M/s. National Insurance Company Limited (supra) as under:- “37. In Anitha Sharma vs. New India Assurance Company Limited, (2021) 1 SCC 171 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the strict principles of evidence and standards of proof like in a criminal trial are inapplicable in Motor Accident Claim Cases. The standard of proof in such like matters is one of preponderance of probabilities, rather than beyond reasonable doubt. One needs to be mindful that the approach and role of Courts while examining evidence in accident claim cases ought not to be to find fault; but, instead should be only to analyze the material placed on record by the parties to ascertain whether the claimant?s version is more likely than not true. 38. One needs to be mindful that the approach and role of Courts while examining evidence in accident claim cases ought not to be to find fault; but, instead should be only to analyze the material placed on record by the parties to ascertain whether the claimant?s version is more likely than not true. 38. In Anitha Sharma (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to its previous judgment in Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646 , in which it was held that the plea of negligence on the part of the first respondent who was driving the pickup van as setup by the claimants was required to be decided by the learned Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and certainly not on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt. 39. Even, R.W.1, in his cross-examination, by seeing the accident photo deposed “that the lorry came on wrong side and dashed against the Car.” Though he added that he was not at fault on the accident. 40. In Usha Rajkhowa and others vs. Paramount Industries and others, (2009) 14 SCC 71 , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed and held that the question of contributory negligence arises when there has been some act or omission on the claimant's part, which has materially contributed to the damage caused, and is of such a nature that it may properly be described as 'negligence'. Negligence ordinarily means breach of a legal duty to care, but when used in the expression 'contributory negligence' it does not mean breach of any duty. It only means the failure by a person to use reasonable care for the safety of either himself or his property, so that he becomes blameworthy in part as an ‘author of his own wrong’.” 26. In the present case we are of the view that nothing has been brought even to suggest that there was any failure on the part of the deceased to take any particular care or that he has breached his duty in any manner. The Tribunal has clearly recorded that no evidence was laid by the Insurance Company to prove the contributory negligence. Any such evidence has also not been pointed out to us from the records, except the part of evidence of PW.1 in cross examination which we have already considered. 27. The Tribunal has clearly recorded that no evidence was laid by the Insurance Company to prove the contributory negligence. Any such evidence has also not been pointed out to us from the records, except the part of evidence of PW.1 in cross examination which we have already considered. 27. The finding of the Tribunal on the point of contributory negligence and that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle only does not call for any interference. 28. On the point of interest @ 9%, we are of the view that the same is not on the higher side but is a reasonable rate of interest. 29. In Rahul Sharma and another vs. another vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others, (2021) 6 SCC 188 , 9% interest of compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization was maintained. 29. In Kirti and another vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2021) 2 SCC 166 , also 9% interest was awarded. Para No.15 reads as under:- “15. For the reasons aforestated, the appeals are allowed inpart. The total motor accident compensation of Rs 22 lakhs awarded by the High Court to the claimantappellants is increased by Rs 11.20 lakhs to reach a new total of Rs 33.20 lakhs. The enhanced amount of compensation shall be paid within two months along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Detailed Accident Report i.e. 23.05.2014, and shall be apportioned per the terms laid down by the Tribunal.” 30. In Manusah Sreekumar and others vs. United India Insurance Company Limited, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1441, the Insurance Company was directed to pay enhanced compensation amount along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realisation. Para No.26 reads as under:- “26. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced compensation amount of Rs.29,73,520/- to the Appellants along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realisation. The aforesaid amount shall be apportioned among the Appellants in the ratio fixed by the Tribunal in the award. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced compensation amount of Rs.29,73,520/- to the Appellants along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realisation. The aforesaid amount shall be apportioned among the Appellants in the ratio fixed by the Tribunal in the award. The Insurance Company shall pay the said amount either by way of demand draft in favour of the Appellants or deposit the same before the Tribunal, after deducting the amount already paid by it, if any, within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.” 31. In Anjali and others vs. Lokendra Rathod and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1683, also the interest @ 9% was allowed. Para No.21 is as under:- “21. Thus the total compensation payable to the Appellants is Rs.25,91,388/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment of the compensation to the Appellants.” 32. In view of the aforesaid judgment on the rate of interest 9%, the submission that it is on the higher side is unsustainable. 9% interest has the support of law. 33. Thus considered on the points for determination we hold that, A. there was no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The finding to that effect of the Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality. B. rate of interest @ 9% is not on the higher side. 34. Thus considered the appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. 35. The appellant is directed to make the payment of the amount under the award to the claimant/respondents with interest adjusting the amount, if any already paid, as also the statutory deposit for filing appeal, within a period of two (02) weeks from today by depositing the same in the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall proceed to pay the same in terms of the award. The statutory deposit amount shall be remitted to the Tribunal concerned by the Registry of this Court. 36. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.