THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY MACMA (SR) No.997 of 2010 JUDGMENT: Sri Navarathan Jain, husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent Nos.2 to 4, was proceeding on a motorcycle on 02.07.2005 at 10.45 p.m. to Golden Corner Hotel, Habsiguda. A lorry bearing No.AP 28U 1833, owned by respondent No.5 and insured with the appellant, came from Ramanthapur side and dashed against the motorcycle. Navarathan Jain died instantly. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed O.P.No.540 of 2006 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Nizamabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’), claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation. It was pleaded that the deceased was employed with M/s.Jain General Merchants, Malakpet on a salary of Rs.6,000/- per month and in addition to that, he was earning Rs.5,000/- per month, by running a private chit business. The matter was mainly contested by the appellant. The age and earnings of the deceased were disputed. It was also alleged that the deceased did not hold valid driving licence. Through its order, dated 26.03.2008, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,48,000/- and apportioned the same among respondent Nos.1 to 4. The same is challenged in this appeal. Sri A.V.K.S.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant, submits that the Tribunal has just believed the version of respondent Nos.1 to 4 as regards the wages of the deceased without any proper verification and that the order cannot be sustained in law. It is also pointed out that the interest awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of 7.5% per annum is excessive. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4, on the other hand, submits that clinching evidence was placed before the Tribunal as regards the age and wages of the deceased and that no interference is warranted. On behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A15 were marked. On behalf of the appellant, a copy of the insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1 and no oral evidence was adduced. The Tribunal framed two issues, namely whether the death of the deceased was on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry and whether respondent Nos.1 to 4 are entitled for the compensation claimed by them. The first issue was answered in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 4 and there is no challenge to it. The only controversy is about the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The death of the deceased in the accident was proved beyond any pale of doubt on the basis of F.I.R., inquest report, remand case diary, residential certificate, P.M.E. report and Xerox copy of the death certificate, Exs.A1 to A6. The age of the deceased was found to be 52 years, though it was mentioned a bit less in the O.P. The correct multiplier was chosen. The dispute is about the earnings of the deceased. P.W.2, the employer of the deceased, stated in his evidence that he is the Proprietor of M/s.Jain General Merchants, Malakpet. He has categorically stated that the deceased was employed with it and salary of Rs.6,000/- per month was being paid. In support of his statement, he filed Exs.A7 and A8, audit statements for the years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. The PAN Card of the business undertaking was marked as Ex.A13. Nothing was elicited from P.W.2 to doubt his credibility. Ex.A9 is the application filed by the deceased seeking benefit under the Self Employment Programme. Had the Tribunal rested its conclusions as to the salary of the deceased only on the oral testimony, things would have been different. In the instant case, the accounts submitted to the Income Tax Department were filed. The relevant PAN Card was also made part of the record. At any rate, the salary of Rs.6,000/- per month in a business undertaking, assessed to income tax, functioning at Hyderabad cannot be said to be excessive. The Tribunal had deducted one-third from the earning capacity of the deceased. Strictly speaking, the deduction should have been of a lesser amount, since there are as many as four respondents. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the findings recorded by the Tribunal as to the earnings of the deceased or the dependency of respondent Nos.1 to 4. The Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Consistently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been awarding the interest at the rate of 7% per annum. Hence, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent of reducing the interest from 7.5% to 7% per annum, but upholding the decree passed by the Tribunal in all other respects. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:25.06.2010. kdl