THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 3800 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved against the order and decree dated 31.01.2002 in O.P.No.422 of 1998 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, the appellant- respondent filed the present appeal. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The appellant herein is the respondent in the main O.P. On 30.10.1997 at about 2.45 p.m. the deceased-Vedantham Damodara Chari was going towards Yadagiripally on his scooter, and when he reached near Nallapochammawada temple, a Maruti Car bearing No.AP9J 9800 coming from Yadagiripally and going towards Yadagirigutta driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed came and dashed the deceased. As a result of which, the deceased fell down and sustained head injury and other grievous injuries all over his body. Immediately, he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad, where he succumbed to the injuries on 23.11.1997. Before the court below, the respondent filed its counter denying all the allegations made in the petition. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that he is not the owner of the offending car in question. The Court below failed to see that P.W.1, who is said to be the eye witness, turned hostile in the criminal case and therefore, his evidence before this Court cannot be taken into consideration. He further urged that the award of compensation granted by the lower Court is very excessive. Now the point for consideration is whether the compensation granted by the lower Court is just and reasonable and that there are grounds to disagree with the findings of the lower Court. It is an admitted fact about the manner in which the accident occurred. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. P.W.2 is the direct witness to the accident. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.2 attaches any amount of significance. Ex.A.1 the true copy of the First Information Report, Ex.A.2 the inquest report, which reads that the deceased died in the motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending car. Though P.W.2 turned hostile in the criminal Court, his evidence is not final and conclusive in view of the observation of the lower Court while relying on the documentary evidence Exs.A1 to A.3. Therefore, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending car. The next point for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Court is reasonable. In the lower Court, compensation was granted placing relaying on the documentary evidence Ex.A.6-salary certificate of the deceased. According to the evidence of P.W.1, the deceased i.e., her husband was working as Assistant Lineman in Electricity Department and was drawing a salary of Rs.5,000/- per month. As could be seen from the salary certificate, the income of the deceased per month is Rs.3,427/- as gross. The lower Court rightly calculated the income of the deceased while awarding compensation by applying the suitable multiplier. The respondent’s counsel did not dispute the application of multiplier by the lower Court. Ex.A.6 is salary certificate, which reads the income of the deceased. The respondent in his evidence also admitted that “I have not specifically stated in para 3 of the counter that he is not the owner of the car bearing No. AP 9Z 9800.” No rebuttal evidence is adduced on behalf of the respondent against the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 and the documentary evidence Ex.A.1. In the absence of rebuttal evidence, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 coupled with documentary evidence Exs.A1 and A.2 remained unchallenged. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the finding of the lower Court awarding compensation by relying on the documentary evidence Ex.A.6-salary certificate holds good and needs no interference. With regard to the grant of interest on the amount of compensation, in view of the latest judgment held in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1], granting interest at the rate of 6% per annum is just and reasonable as against the rate of interest, orders passed by the lower Court is modified. With this modification, the appeal is allowed in part. ______________ K.S.APPA RAO,J 10th February 2011 bud [1] 2009 ACJ 1298