HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1573 of 2004 JUDGMENT: Pallapu Kistaiah, the husband of the first respondent, father of respondents 2 and 3 and son of respondents 4 and 5, was a stone-cutter, by profession. On 02/11/2001, he was proceeding on a bicycle from Ghatkesar towards Medipally village, and at about 7:30 AM when he reached Medipally, a lorry bearing No.AEK 4995, owned by the sixth respondent and insured with the appellant, hit Kistaiah and he died on the spot. Respondents 1 to 5 (hereinafter called as ‘the claimants’) filed O.P.No.2401 of 2001 before the Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, claiming a sum of Rs.4 lakhs as compensation. The OP was opposed by the appellant alone. Through its order dated 01/08/2003, the Tribunal awarded a sum of RS.2,78,300/- and apportioned the same among the claimants. This appeal is directed against the said order. Heard Sri A.V.K.S.Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri M.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants. Before the Tribunal, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-11 were marked on behalf of the claimants. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant and Ex.B-1, the certified copy of the policy was marked. The Tribunal framed two issues for its consideration. The first was as to whether the death of Kistaiah was on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle. The finding was that there was negligence on the part of the driver. That is not challenged in this appeal. The second issue related to the quantum of compensation to be awarded. Though it was pleaded that the deceased was aged 29 years, the Tribunal recorded a finding to the effect that his age is 35 years. The appellant is not able to demonstrate as to how that finding is defective. Coming to the wages, P.W.1 the wife of the deceased categorically pleaded that her husband was a stone-cutter and was earning an average of Rs.100/- per day. The Sarpanch of the village issued a certificate to that effect, which was marked as Ex.A-7. Even the genuinity of this is not challenged. Nothing was elicited from the witness to doubt the correctness of her statement. The Tribunal has taken 17 as the multiplier having regard to the age of the deceased. It may be true that the multiplier to be applied for a person between the age of 35 and 60 as per the table to schedule II is 17, however, it can be balanced by the fact that the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd from the earnings of the deceased though it should have been 1/4th having regard to the number of dependents etc. The interest was awarded at 9% p.a. In the recent past, the Honourable Supreme Court consistently held that in matters of this nature the interest should be 7% p.a. For the foregoing reasons, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed by reducing the interest from 9% p.a., to 7% p.a., but upholding the findings of the Tribunal in all other respects. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 16th June, 2010 SKM