THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2033 of 2003 ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard both sides. 2. Aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 05.08.2002, in O.P.No.24 of 2001, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Nizamabad (for brevity “the Tribunal”), awarding a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- made by the claimants, who are the parents, for the death of the deceased-Agaldety alias Agalduty Laxman, who died in a motor accident that occurred on 16.6.2000, due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the jeep, bearing registration No.MH-17-A-2450, 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 and 2 herein are the claimants and respondent No.3 is the owner of the offending jeep. 4. This is a case of death in a road accident. The particulars regarding the method and manner in which the accident had occurred are not referred to since already on record. The Tribunal, after appreciating the entire evidence on record, both oral and documentary, awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased. Hence, the present appeal by the insurer. 5. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the quantification of compensation made by the Tribunal is proper and justified. 6. I have carefully gone through the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Though it was claimed by the claimants that the deceased was aged about 12 years and earning Rs.6,000/- per month, no documentary proof is filed in support of the same. However, basing Exs.A-3 and A-4, copies of inquest panchanama and P.M.E. report, respectively, the Tribunal had taken the age of the deceased as 9 years at the time of accident and a non-earning member and, accordingly, relying on the judgment rendered by Karnataka High Court in PUTTAMMA AND ANOTHER v. D.V.KRISHNAPPA AND ANOTHER[1] awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation, which in my considered view is just and reasonable. 7. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or irrationality in the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards compensation calling for interference by this Court. 8. 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. 9. 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. In all other aspects, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal shall remain unaltered. 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.2033 of 2003 22.07.2010 (Msr) 2000 ACJ 103