HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR M.A.C.M.A.No.1561 of 2011 Date: July 22, 2011 Between: M/s. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Regional Manager, Secunderabad. …Appellant/ Respondent No.2 And 1. B. Laxman Naik & 3 others. …Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR M.A.C.M.A.No.1561 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This appeal has been filed by M/s. The New India Assurance Company Limited, represented by its Regional manager, Secunderabad, challenging the Award dated 21.12.2006 passed by the Chairman, Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, in M.V.O.P. No.475 of 2005. 2. Respondents 1 to 3 herein are the claimants and the fourth respondent herein was the first respondent before the Tribunal. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 12.02.2004 at about 2.00 p.m. while the deceased Bunny Bai @ Banama along with her family members was proceeding towards Kushaiguda from Keesara in an auto bearing No.AP 13W 565 and when the said auto reached near ARM factory, outskirts of Nagaram village, one Eicher van bearing No.AP 11U 2390 coming in the opposite direction being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner in high speed, came in wrong side and dashed against the auto. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot and other occupants also sustained grievous injuries. Police registered a case in Crime No.24 of 2004 under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC against the driver of the van. 3. R-1 is the holder of the van. R-2 is the insurance company, appellant herein. The first claimant is the husband of the deceased. Claimants 2 and 3 are the sons of the deceased. They claim a total compensation of Rs.3.00 lakhs. 4. The second respondent filed a counter denying all the allegations made by the claimants. The first respondent remained ex parte. Necessary issues were settled. 5. On behalf of the claimants, the first claimant was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked. None were examined and no documents were marked on behalf the respondents. 6. The Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the driver of the Eicher van drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. The Tribunal had taken notional income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month and accordingly awarded Rs.3.00 lakhs with future interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Aggrieved by the said award, this appeal had been filed. 7. The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the lower Tribunal has granted 7.5 per cent interest, whereas 6 per cent has to be awarded in view of the settled legal position. It is also his submission that the income of the deceased was taken on higher side without any evidence. The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the settled legal position is even in case of a house wife, the notional income of a housewife should be taken at Rs.3,000/- per month. 8. The other facts are not in dispute. Admittedly, the deceased was aged about 43 years. She died in the motor accident. As far as the negligence of the driver of the vehicle is concerned, it is also not in dispute. The only disputed issue is what should be the notional income of the deceased housewife. In view of the settled legal position that the notional income of the housewife is taken as Rs.3,000/- per month, I am of the view that the findings of the lower Tribunal need not be disturbed on this aspect. 9. As far as the interest aspect is concerned, as contended by Sri B. Devanand, learned counsel for the appellant, it is just and reasonable to reduce the interest from 7.5 per cent to 6 per cent. Accordingly the impugned order stands modified to the extent of awarding interest. 10. The appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. ________________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: July 22, 2011. BSB