THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY M.A.C.M.A.No.2445 of 2006 JUDGMENT: Chatlapally Komuraiah, husband of the 1st respondent and father of the 2nd respondent, was working as a labourer on a tractor/trailer bearing AP 15 U 718/719, owned by the 3rd respondent and insured with the appellant, on 16.04.2004 at Bavupeta Village of Karimnagar District. After the trailer was loaded with sand, the tractor was proceeding towards Khazipur. Komuraiah fell down from the trailer and received fatal injuries and died on the spot. A crime was registered by P.S. Karimnagar Rural. Stating that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.3,000/-, per month, and that he was aged 35 years, respondents 1 and 2 filed O.P.No.467 of 2004 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- IV Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, by claiming a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation, under Section 166 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short ‘the Act’). The owner of the vehicle, the 3rd respondent, remained ex parte. The O.P. was contested by the appellant alone. It was pleaded that the death did not occur, on account of any accident and that the claim made by respondents 1 and 2 is excessive. Through its order, dated 03.01.2006, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,88,000/-, as compensation, and apportioned the same among respondents 1 and 2. Heard Sri T. Mahender Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri Venkateshwarlu Varanasi, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2. On behalf of respondents 1 and 2, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6, documents pertaining to the accident, were filed. On behalf of the appellant, none were examined, but the policy was marked as Ex.B.1. Permission under Section 173 of the Act, was obtained to challenge the quantum. Though it is sought to be projected that the death of the deceased was not on account of the involvement of the tractor, the evidence on record establishes the fact that the death occurred on account of the accident. FIR, Post-mortem report and charge-sheet clearly clinch this issue. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has taken the emoluments of the deceased as Rs.2,000/- per month and the multiplier ‘16’ was applied. It is not pointed out as to how the figures, as to income, or multiplier, are defective. It may be true that PW.1 stated in the cross-examination that the deceased was earning Rs.40/- to Rs.50/-, per day. However, the Tribunal has taken into account the wages that were prevailing at the relevant point of time for an unskilled worker. It may be true that a sum of Rs.15,000/-, each, towards ‘loss of consortium’ and ‘love & affection’ was awarded and that the same does not strictly accord with Schedule II. However, if one takes into account the age of respondents 1 and 2, the said amount cannot be said to be excessive. Interest was awarded by the Tribunal at 7.5%, per annum. In matters of this nature, at the relevant point of time prevailing rate was 6.5%. Hence, the appeal is partly allowed, reducing the rate of interest from 7.5% to 6.5%, but upholding the order in all other respects. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:23.12.2011 GJ