THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.1469 OF 201 JUDGMENT: Heard. 2. The appellant herein is the 5th respondent in O.P.No.1434 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, where-under for the death of the deceased Jagannadha Abaddam, a claim of Rs.5,75,000/- was made and the lower Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.2,92,500/- making the appellant liable to pay the said amount being the insurer of the vehicles. 3. According to the case of the claimant, the deceased was going in the Oil Tanker bearing No.AP 31 V 152, which was insured with the 4th respondent driven by him. Meanwhile, the Truck bearing No. 01 X 3209 and also Truck bearing No.OR-02B-0562, which were insured with the appellant, came in the opposite direction and a collusion has taken place, as a result of which, the deceased said to have been received injuries and died. The original First Information Report is said to have been given by the owner of the oil tanker, which was driven by the deceased attributing rashness and negligence to the deceased. But, however, after investigation, the police have filed the charge sheet against the drivers and the insurance company of all the vehicles. 4. The appellant herein disputed the liability on the ground that there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the other vehicles, which were insured with the appellant, but it was due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased alone. The appellant also disputing the earning capacity of the deceased and the dependants of the deceased. After considering the evidence on record, the lower Tribunal found that the incident was due to the fault of the opposite vehicles even though the complaint contains rashness and negligence attributed to the deceased, the First Information Report was registered against the drivers of all the vehicles and a charge sheet was also said to have been filed against the drivers of the other vehicles. Therefore, it is quite clear that the investigation has disclosed the rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the other vehicles merely because the original complaint contained some allegations against the deceased, which are not proved, it is very difficult to accept the contention of the appellant that there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the drivers of the offending vehicles, which were insured with the appellant herein, more so when no evidence of any nature was produced by the appellant. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, I do not find any irregularity in the finding of the lower Tribunal that the vehicles, which were insured with the appellant are involved in the accident and they are liable to pay the compensation. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the lower Court has fixed the income of the deceased on a higher rate and also did not properly deduct the personal expenses and therefore, it has to be interfered with. Evidently, the deceased was unmarried. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/-. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the incident has happened in the year, 1998 and the earning capacity of the driver during those days is not that much without there being any proof but however, it is to be mentioned that the incident happened outside the Sate and apart from the salary other benefits will also be given to the driver of the vehicle and consequently, fixation of the income of Rs.3,000/- per month cannot be said to be excessive. But, however, the Tribunal has deducted only 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased though he is unmarried. Taking into consideration the settled law, the contribution can only be fixed at Rs.1,500/- per month and the annual contribution comes to Rs.18,000/- . The age of the father is shown as ‘56’ years and the age of the mother is shown as ‘48’ years. Evidently, the age of the mother appears to have been shown less. Hence, she is also taken as age above ‘50’ years and consequently, the multiplier ‘11’ has applied. The total compensation comes to Rs.1,98,000/-. The petitioner will be entitled to non-pecuniary damages of Rs.10,000/-. Accordingly, the total compensation petitioner entitled to is Rs.2,08,000/-, rounded up to Rs.2,10,000/-. The lower Tribunal granted interest at 9% per annum, which is on higher side. Since the Courts are adopting the uniform rate of interest at 7.5%, the rate of interest is reduced to 7.5% per annum. Accordingly, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J Date: 20.07.2011 INL