THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.857 of 2003 ORAL ORDER: Heard both sides. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation filed this appeal challenging the award, dated 05.11.2002, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam (for short ‘the Tribunal’), in M.O.P.No.1731 of 2000, wherein and whereby, a sum of Rs.2,09,000/- was awarded as compensation to the claimants-respondents 1 to 5 herein for the death of the deceased-Apparao. There is no controversy about the accident and the facts that led to the accident. Therefore, those facts are neither gone into nor being repeated. P.W-1 was the wife of the deceased. The deceased was aged about 36 years at the time of his death. The age of the deceased mentioned in Ex.A-3-post-mortem certificate was also 36 years. Hence, the Tribunal believed the version of the claimants that the deceased was 36 years old as on the date of his death and accordingly, applied the multiplier of “14.5” for awarding compensation. There cannot be any dispute on this aspect also. As per the evidence of P.W-1, the deceased seems to earn Rs.3,000/- per month by attending coolie work in a cement factor. The Tribunal pointed out that there was no documentary evidence to prove the said fact. Therefore, in the absence of such clear evidence, the Tribunal made some guess work and appropriately arrived at a figure of Rs.1,500/- per month as the income of the petitioner, from which 1/3rd was deducted towards his personal expenses and accordingly, awarded a sum of Rs.1,74,000/- towards loss of dependency, apart from awarding a sum of Rs.15,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.5,000/- under the heads of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, respectively, totalling to Rs.2,09,000/- In view of the discussion made by the Tribunal in the impugned award in arriving at the said figure, I am of the opinion that there is no irrationality in the said quantification. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that at least the rate of interest be slashed since the same is on the higher side. I cannot agree with this request because in the year 2000, i.e., when the award was passed, interest at the rate of 9% per annum was in force and hence, the same is not irrational. Accordingly, the said plea is also rejected. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances and for the aforementioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA​ 24th June 2010 dr