THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO MACMA NO.2052 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved against the order and decree dated 21.09.2005 in O.P.No.449 OF 2003 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, the appellant/ second respondent (Insurance Company) filed the present appeal. The appellant herein is the second respondent in the Tribunal below. Petitioners 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased boy-Master Hemanthu, aged about 8 years, who died in a motor vehicle accident on 22.03.2003. The Tribunal below while considering the evidence adduced by the petitioners, granted a total compensation of Rs.2,25,00/- against the claim of Rs.2,50,000/. Aggrieved with the same, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company mainly urging that the award passed by the Tribunal below is excessive and the Tribunal below has not deducted half of the alleged earnings of the deceased in applying the multiplier while granting compensation. Now the point for consideration is whether the award of compensation granted by the Tribunal below is sustainable. Before the Tribunal below P.Ws 1 and 2, the parents of the deceased were examined. According to them, P.W.2, the mother of the deceased is an eyewitness to the accident. Ex.A.1 is the First Information Report and Ex.A.2 is the Charge sheet. On a perusal of the aforesaid documents, it is clear that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle involved in the accident. The driver of the vehicle was charge-sheeted for his negligent driving. P.W.2 clearly stated in her evidence that she has seen the accident and she deposed the manner in which the accident occurred. The mode of the accident is not disputed in this appeal. As per the evidence of P.W1 and P.W.2, the deceased is aged about 8 years and studying 3rd class at the time of the accident. P.W.2 has seen her son dragged by the vehicle while involving accident in front of her. The Tribunal below assessed the income of the deceased as 15,000/- per annum being a non-earning member and applied the multiplier “15” and granted compensation amount of Rs.2,25,000/-. The petitioners are aged 30 and 28 years respectively and they lost their son in the accident. Therefore, any amount of compensation for the death of the deceased, aged about 8 years will not compensate the sufferings and feelings of the parents. Though the learned counsel appearing for the appellant’s counsel draw the attention of the Court to the decision reported in Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Vs. Mohammed Jameel and another[1], in the instant case, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal below for the death of the deceased at the age of 8 years, a student of 3rd class, is quite reasonable though not meagre. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is dismissed. However, while placing reliance on the decision reported i n Sarla Verma Vs., Delhi Transport Corporation[2], the rate of interest of at 7.5% awarded by the Tribunal below is reduced to 6% per annum. ______________ K.S.APPA RAO,J 01st April 2011 bud [1] (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225 [2] (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121