THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 3585 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the insurance company against the award dated 21.06.2004 in O.P.No.507 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Anantapur. A claim was made for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- consequent on the death of the deceased K.Jayachandra Reddy in a motor accident on 09.08.1998 when he was said to have been hit by a tractor bearing No.AP 21 A 8474 while coming on his motorcycle. The petitioners are the wife, children and parents of the deceased. The deceased was said to be working as a helper and earning Rs.4,033/- per month. The 1st respondent is the owner of the tractor and trailor and the 2nd respondent is the insurance company and both of them are liable for compensation. The 1st respondent remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent filed counter putting the petitioners to strict proof of averments in the petition and denied the nature of accident, earnings of the deceased and its liability to pay compensation. After considering the material on record, the lower Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs.3,09,252/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable? POINT: So far as the nature of the incident and cause of death of the deceased is concerned, there is no dispute. The lower Tribunal has not accepted the salary of the deceased, however, taken the earning capacity of the deceased at Rs.1,500/- per month and after deducting one-third towards personal expenses, has arrived at Rs.12,000/- per annum. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that without any basis, supervisory for the agricultural lands has been fixed at Rs.75,531/- though the deceased is said to be a resident of Hyderabad. Even if this approach is to be taken as erroneous, still the lower Tribunal has applied the multiplier ’14.81’ by following the earlier decision in Bhagwan Das v. Mohd. Arif [1987(2)ALT 137]. However, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], the multiplier is on a higher side and if that multiplier is applied the compensation cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable. Therefore, taking into consideration the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is confirmed while reducing the rate of interest from 9% per annum to 7.5% per annum. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J DATE: 02-12-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No. 3585 of 2011 DATE: 02-12-2011 MR [1] (2009) 7 SCC 372 = 2009 AIR SCW 4992