THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1753 of 2003 ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard both sides. 2. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 02.09.2002, in O.P.No.133 of 1998, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Nizamabad (for brevity “the Tribunal”), allowing the O.P. by awarding a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation as claimed by the petitioners therein for the death of the deceased-Maddudevar Nagaiah, who died in a motor accident that occurred on 11.02.1998, due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the jeep, bearing registration No.AP 23 8445, the present civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the insurer- National Insurance Company Limited. 3. The appellant is the insurer of the offending jeep, respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are the claimants and respondent No.4 is the owner of the offending jeep. 4. This is a case of death in a road accident. The method and manner in which the accident had occurred is not referred to since already on record. The Tribunal, after appreciating the entire evidence on record, both oral and documentary, allowed the O.P. granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- as claimed by the claimants for the death of the deceased. Hence, the present appeal by the insurer. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer contends that there is no evidence on record in order to show the social status of the deceased and there is no proof with regard to his income also. Therefore, the quantification of compensation made by the Tribunal is highly disproportionate and excess. 6. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the quantification of compensation made by the Tribunal is just and proper. 7. I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal. A perusal of the impugned judgment would show that there is evidence on record to show that the deceased belongs to Scheduled Caste community (Mala), agriculturist by profession and aged about 40 years as on the date of accident. There is no contra evidence in order to disprove either the occupation or the age of the deceased. In such circumstances, just a marginal amount of Rs.3,000/- was notionally fixed as the monthly income of the deceased. Eventually by taking into consideration the age of the deceased and by applying the right multiplier ‘16’, and also by taking into consideration all other aspects, the Tribunal had rightly arrived at the said figure of Rs.4,00,000/-. 8. Therefore, I do not find any error apparent on the face of the record nor there is any misappreciation of facts and law in the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal. There are no merits in the civil miscellaneous appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. However, the Tribunal had awarded interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. In my considered view, the said rate of interest is slightly on higher side. Therefore, exercising the power under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, I deem it appropriate to reduce the rate of interest from 9% to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. 10. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part, reducing the rate of interest from 9% to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 22.07.2010 Msr. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1753 of 2003 22.07.2010 (Msr)