THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.242 of 2008 JUDGMENT: Being aggrieved by the order and decree dated 06.12.2006 in O.P.No.2046 of 2005 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XIX Additional Chief Judge, City Criminal Court, Hyderabad, the present appeal is filed. The appellant herein is the respondent No.2 in the O.P.No.2046 of 2005. The Tribunal while evaluating the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 considered the notional income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per annum and granted the compensation. The counsel appearing for the appellant mainly urged that the Tribunal below without any material fixed the notional income on that score and also awarded interest at 7% per annum instead of 6% per annum which is also erroneous. Now the point for consideration is whether the judgment of the Tribunal is sustainable? The petitioners in O.P.No.2046 of 2005 are the legal representatives of the deceased –Pannalal Mera, aged 24 years. The petitioner filed petition claiming compensation of Rs.4,62,500/-. The factum of accident is not disputed. According to PW.1, the father of the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month by working as collection boy in M/s Maharaja Enterprises, Jaipur, Rajasthan. It is also the evidence of PW.2 that deceased was making all his efforts to get good employment and unfortunately he met with the accident in the meanwhile. Though there is no documentary evidence in proof of the earning of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month, basing on the evidence of PW.1 and back ground of the family members of the petitioners in particular the age of the deceased is being 24 years the Tribunal fixed the earning capacity of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month which comes to Rs.100/- per day. In any view of the matter, the finding of the Tribunal in fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- is quite reasonable pursuant to the back ground of the employment of the deceased. The Tribunal also applied multiplier ‘15’ basing on the decision reported in Sarla Verma and others v Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1]. The other amounts of compensation granted to the petitioners under relevant heads are in my view quite reasonable. Though the counsel appearing for the respondent/petitioner draw the attention of the Court for enhancement of compensation even at this stage, the circumstances do not warrant to draw the inference on the grounds pleaded by him. However, while confirming the findings of the Tribunal in awarding compensation, in my opinion, reducing of interest from 7% to 6% is just and reasonable by applying the principles laid down in Sarla Verma and others (one supra) case. Accordingly, the rate of interest on the compensation amount is reduced from 7% per annum to 6% per annum. With the above modification, the appeal is allowed. K.S.APPA RAO,J 1st April, 2011 PNV [1] 2009 ACJ,1298