IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A No. 308 of 2008 BETWEEN M/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited Divisional Manager having its Officer at APSFC building N.T. Road, Balaji Colony, Tirupathi … Appellant AND 1. B. Lavanya, W/o Late B. Rama Mohan Reddy 2. Minor B. Harshitha 3. Minor B. Nikhil 4. Smt. B. Jasuryamma 5. K. Chinni Krishna … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A No. 308 of 2008 JUDGMENT: Being aggrieved by the award in order and decree dated 07.08.2007 passed in M.V.O.P.No.257 of 2004 on the file of the District Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chittoor, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant herein. 2. The petitioners filed the petition seeking a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of the deceased Rammohan Reddy in the motor accident. The Tribunal below after adducing the evidence on record awarded an amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 9% per annum. Aggrieved with the said award, the present appeal is filed. 3. The appellant herein is Insurance company-the 2nd respondent in the M.V.O.P.No.257 of 2004. It is the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the lower Court awarded the compensation excessively and also granted an interest at 9% per annum, which is erroneous as per the decision reported in SARALA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1]and sought for interference by this Court for reducing compensation and also interest granted by the Tribunal below. 4. Now the point for consideration is whether the award of the lower Court is sustainable? 5. The claimants, in order to prove the accident, examined P.W-2 and filed Exs.A-1 and A-2. The factum of accident was not disputed by the appellant herein. The vehicle had valid insurance policy with the 2nd respondent on the date of the alleged accident. In order to prove the income of the deceased, the petitioner pleaded that the deceased was a politician and M.P.T.C member and he was having agricultural land and doing contract works besides doing mango business and earning Rs.10,000/- per annum from out of agriculture and Rs. 20,000/- per month from out of contract works and business. The evidence of P.W-1 is also on the same lines. P.W-1,wife of the deceased, deposed that they are having 40 acres of land and mango garden and their husband was raising sugarcane, paddy, etc, besides doing seasonal business and was earning Rs.2,40,000/- per annum. To corroborate the evidence of P.W-1, one of the close relatives of the deceased was examined as P.W- 2. His evidence was also corroborated with the evidence of P.W-1 with regard to the income of the deceased. The petitioners also filed Ex.A-7, No.2 Adangal, which shows that the deceased was owning Ac.40.33 cents of land and he was personally cultivating the same. 6. The Tribunal below had taken the notional income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month which, in my view, is just and reasonable. In view of the evidence of P.W.2 and the documents filed by them especially in particular Ex.A-7-No.2 Adangal, which shows that the deceased was owning Ac.40.33 cents of land besides he was doing seasonal business. The Tribunal noted that the annual income comes to Rs.72,000/-and deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses. By placing reliance on the decision reported in SARALA VERMA’s case (supra), 1/4th has to be deducted. However, while taking into consideration the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month, the finding of the lower Court needs no interference. The Court below applied multiplier ‘15’ and as per SARALA VERMA case (supra) also the age group of person of 40 years, multiplier applied is to be ‘15’. Therefore, the application of multiplier ‘15’ by the lower Court is also sustainable. In any view of the matter, Rs.7,50,000/- granted by the lower Court under all heads is sustainable. 7. However, while placing reliance on the decision of the SARALA VERMA’s case (supra), as far as the interest is concerned, an interest at the rate 6% per annum is granted against in the interest at the rate 9% granted by the Court below. Therefore, the interest at the rate 9% per annum is reduced to at the rate 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. 8. With the above modification, the Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ K.S.APPA RAO, J March 30, 2011 SP [1] 2009 (6) scale 129