THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO C.M.A.No.3090 of 2003 JUDGMENT: Being aggrieved by the order and decree dated 25.03.2003 in O.P.No.579 of 2000 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Additional District Judge, Adilabad, the present appeal is filed mainly urging that the Tribunal, without considering Ex.A6 – pay slip and the counter filed by the insurance company, erroneously arrived at the figure of the salary. He also further urged that as per Ex.A.1, the deceased died while crossing the road. Therefore, insurance company is responsible for the accident but not the owner and the interest granted by the Tribunal is excessive. It is the contention of the respondents’ counsel that the Tribunal basing on the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 gave correct finding that due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, the deceased died. He also further urged that the Tribunal while placing reliance on Ex.A.6 assessed the dependency, which needs no interference. Now, the point for consideration is whether the judgment of the Tribunal is sustainable? As per Ex.A.1 F.I.R. the complainant on hearing about the death of the deceased rushed to the accident spot. There he was informed that the deceased met with an accident and died while crossing the road. During the course of evidence, PW.2 a direct witness to the accident stated that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Basing on the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Tribunal held that the deceased died due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Hence, I see no grounds to defer with the finding of the Tribunal on that score. The next point regarding the quantum of compensation. The Tribunal has taken into consideration Exs.A.6 and A.7 while granting compensation. Ex.A.6 is the printed proforma evidencing the payments of the employees working in the Singareni Colleries Co.Limited. Ex.A.7 is another Xerox copy of the certificate issued by Colliery Manager, Mahaveer Khani, No.5 Incline. The Tribunal disbelieved the document Ex.A.7 stating that author of the said document is not examined. PW.1 also did not examine the author of Ex.A.6 in support of the earnings of the deceased. However a perusal of Exs.A.6 pay slip discloses all the deductions and payments relating to the deceased. Ex.A.7 is the original salary certificate certified by Colliery Manager. Viewed from any angle, Ex.A.6 – pay slip certainly has authenticity than Ex.A.7. The non-examination of author of the other document will not in any way affect the claim of the claimants. But having regard to the facts and circumstances and evidence on record, and also the nature of Ex.A.6 and A.7, I strongly place reliance on Ex.A.6. The Tribunal also placed reliance on Ex.A.6, which shows that the monthly income of the deceased is Rs.6,909/-. Absolutely I see no reasons to defer with the finding of the Tribunal on that score. Therefore, the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the circumstances of the case on hand. However, in the circumstances of the case on hand, the rate of interest is reduced from 9% to 7.5%. With the above modification, the appeal is partly allowed. No costs. __________________ K.S.APPA RAO,J 17th March,2011 PNV