THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.1843 of 2003 JUDGMENT: Rathakanti Lingaiah, the husband of the 1st respondent and father of respondents 2 and 3, was working as LIC agent in Nizamabad District. On 11.08.1997, at 10.30 a.m., he was proceeding to Banswada from Konapoor Village, on a moped, bearing No.AP 25/D 2085, along with a pillion rider. A bus, bearing No.AP 10 Z 1930, owned by the APSRTC, the appellants herein, is said to have dashed against the moped, resulting in serious injuries to Lingaiah, and he died on the spot. A criminal case was instituted against the driver of the bus and post-mortem was conducted on the dead body. The respondents filed O.P.No.717 of 1997 in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nizamabad, claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, as compensation. It was pleaded that the deceased was aged 45 years, on the date of accident, and that he was being paid, Rs.42,575/-, as commission, by the LIC, per annum. They have also pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.36,000/-, per annum, from agriculture. The O.P., was opposed by the appellants. According to them, the accident occurred, on account of the negligence on the part of the deceased also. They disputed the income of the deceased. The Tribunal passed an order, dated 20.03.2002, awarding a sum of Rs.8,18,275/-, with interest at 9%, per annum, as compensation, and apportioned the same among respondents. Hence, this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased simply admitting the figures furnished by the respondents. He contends that it is just un- imaginable that the deceased would have derived income of Rs.36,000/-, per annum, from agriculture, and that since the land is still in tact, the said figure ought not to have been taken into account. The second grievance of the appellants is about the multiplier applied by the Tribunal, and the third is that the interest awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant. Though the case was adjourned on number of occasions, learned counsel for the respondents did not turn up. The appellants made an attempt to dispute the plea, as to negligence on the part of their driver for the accident. Before the Tribunal, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.8 were filed on behalf of the respondents. The appellant did not adduce any evidence whatever. The finding recorded by the Tribunal as to the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, cannot be interfered with, since it is supported by unimpeachable evidence. The age of the deceased was 45 years. The respondents pleaded two items of income. The first is in his capacity as LIC agent, which is said to be Rs.42,575/-, as is evident from Ex.A.6. The second item of income was agriculture. According to them, the family owned about six acres of land and through the agriculture therein, the deceased was earning Rs.36,000/-, per annum. The Tribunal took both the figures as they are, deducted one-third therefrom, and held that loss of dependency is Rs.7,80,775/-. Whatever be the accuracy of the commission paid by the LIC, that was certified by the Corporation, the Tribunal ought to have been a bit careful in examining the income from the agricultural lands. Even if the income from agriculture can be taken as Rs.36,000/-, it is not solely on account of the effort of the deceased. The land constitutes the substratum, and that it would be available for the respondents also. This Court is of the view that the contribution of the deceased in relation to the cultivation of the land can be taken at Rs.12,000/- per year. Together with the income from L.I.C., the annual income could be Rs.54,575/-. On deduction of 1/3rd towards the personal expenditure, the loss of dependency would be Rs.36,384/-. The Tribunal adopted the multiplier ‘15’. However, whether one goes by Schedule-II or the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], the relevant multiplier is ‘14’. The loss of annual dependency would come to Rs.5,09,376/-. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- under ‘loss of estate’, Rs.2,500/- towards ‘funeral expenses’ and Rs.15,000/- towards ‘loss of consortium’ for the 1st respondent. Those amounts do not warrant interference. In matters of this nature, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the rate of interest shall not exceed 7%, per annum. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed, reducing the compensation to Rs.5,41,876/-, with interest at 7%, per annum. Out of this, the 1st respondent shall be entitled to Rs.2,41,876/- and respondents 2 and 3 a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, each. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:10.11.2011 GJ [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121