THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.Nos.4667 of 2003 & 943 of 2005 COMMON ORDER: On 29-06-1997, number of persons were travelling in a Jeep bearing No.AP-1-C-1742, owned by one, Syed Abdul Khader, and insured with the appellant, from Nirmal to Nizamabad. They included Wajida Begum, the wife of the 1st respondent, and mother of respondents 2 to 6 in M.A.C.M.A.No.4467 of 2003 and Nikhat Sultana Shaheem, the daughter-in-law of the 1st respondent and mother of respondents 2 to 5 in M.A.C.M.A.No.943 of 2005. The Jeep dashed against A.P.S.R.T.C Bus bearing No.AP-10-Z-179, near Perkit Village, and the same led to the death of the two women, referred to above. O.P.Nos.777 and 775 of 1998 were ﬁled by the respective claimants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’), claiming a sum of Rs.4 lakhs, in each case. Through separate orders dated 30-04-2003, the Tribunal awarded Rs.3,55,000/- and Rs.2,71,000/-, respectively, and apportioned the same among the claimants. The appellant assails the awards passed by the Tribunal. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. The appellant does not dispute the occurrence of the accident. An eﬀort is made to convince this Court that there was contributory negligence, on the part of the driver of the RTC Bus also. However, the record discloses that the criminal case was registered against the driver of the Jeep alone, and no evidence was adduced by the appellant, to point out that there was any negligence on the part of the driver of the Bus. At any rate, two appeals, being M.A.C.M.A.No.1701 of 2003 and C.M.A No.3708 of 2003, which were ﬁled in relation to the same accident; were dismissed by this Court, upholding the ﬁnding as to the liability for the accident. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the appellant is not able to point out any factual or legal infirmity. The Tribunal has taken into account, the age and contribution of the deceased, on the basis of record; applied the correct multipliers, and determined the compensation, correctly. One thing, which however, needs the attention of this Court, is that the Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court has been taking the view that the interest, in matters of this nature, shall not exceed 7% per annum. Hence, the appeals are partly allowed, reducing the rate of interest from 9% to 7% per annum, but upholding the awards in all other respects. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ Dt.15-11-2011. L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. KO