JUDGMENT This C.M.A. is filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited, against the award dated 21-10-2005, passed by the XXIII Additional Chief Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.P. No.616 of 2002. 2. The respondents 1 to 4 (for short the respondents) filed the O.P., alleging that Sri Dayanand, husband of the 1st respondent, and father of respondents 2 and 3 (sic. 2 to 4), was travelling, on 13-1-2002, in an Ambassador Car, bearing No.AIS-8686, from Hyderabad to Devasoogur, and when it reached the outskirts of Maganur village, a Bajaj Tempo bearing No.AP9U-4071 came in rash and negligent manner, in the opposite direction and collided with the Ambassador Car. Dayanand is said to have died on the spot, due to fatal injuries, and other persons travelling in the Car sustained injuries, and in fact, one of them died at a later point of time. 3. The respondents pleaded that late Dayanand was employed as a U.D.C. in A.P. Transco and was earning about Rs.10,000/per month, and that he was aged 45 years, by the time he died. They claimed a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-, as compensation. 4. The 5th respondent, owner of the vehicle, remained, ex parte. The matter was contested by the appellant alone. Several contentions, touching upon the actual income of the deceased, his age, etc., were raised. 5. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent was examined as P.W.1 the eye-witness to the accident was examined as P.W.2, and the Assistant Accounts Officer of the Organization, in which the deceased was working, was examined as P.W.3. They marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. On behalf of the appellant herein, no oral evidence was adduced. The insurance policy was marked as Ex. B-1. On a consideration of the material before it, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.7,27,752/-. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court committed error in treating the income of the deceased as Rs. 6,095/-, without taking into account the deductions from the salary. It is also urged that the multiplier 14 was wrongly applied. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the gross salary of the deceased was Rs. 9,123/-, and the Tribunal has taken into account the basic salary alone. He further contends that the multiplier was applied duly taking into account Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short the Act). 8. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the gross salary of the deceased was Rs. 9,123/-, and the Tribunal has taken into account the basic salary alone. He further contends that the multiplier was applied duly taking into account Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short the Act). 8. Two questions arise for consideration in this C.M.A: The first is, as to the income of the deceased, and the second is about the multiplier, that is to be applied, in the facts of the case. 9. On behalf of the respondents, a salary certificate of the deceased was filed as EX.A-6. To prove that, P.W.3 was examined. According to Ex.A-6, the gross salary of the deceased was Rs. 9,123/-. It also reflected the deductions to the extent of Rs. 1,216/-. However, the Tribunal has chosen to take the basic salary of the deceased, viz., Rs.6,095/-, as the income, per month. From this, it deducted 1/3rd and took the dependency of the respondents at Rs. 4,064/-; the loss of dependency per annum at Rs 48,768/-, and by applying the multiplier 14 the loss of estate was taken at Rs.6,82,752/-. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has taken the total salary of the deceased as the loss of income for the respondents. 10. It is not in dispute that the age of the deceased was 45 years. As per Schedule II, appended to the Act, the proper multiplier is 15. However, since the annual income of the deceased had exceeded Rs. 40,000/-, the multiplier indicated by this Court in Bhagwan Das v. Mohd. Arif has to be applied, as per the Division Bench judgment of this Court in A. Vijaya and others v. Vegurla Rajaiah and others. The multiplier indicated by this Court in Bhagwan Dascase (1 supra), for a person of 45 years of age; is 10.45, and not 14, adopted by the Tribunal. 11. To a large extent, the reduction in the multiplier can be set off, by the revision, in the income of the deceased. After the deductions, the net salary of the deceased comes to Rs. 7,799/-. If 1/3rd from this is excluded towards personal expenditure of the deceased, it comes to Rs. 5,199/-. The annual dependency of the respondents would be Rs.62,388/-. After the deductions, the net salary of the deceased comes to Rs. 7,799/-. If 1/3rd from this is excluded towards personal expenditure of the deceased, it comes to Rs. 5,199/-. The annual dependency of the respondents would be Rs.62,388/-. On application of the multiplier of 10.45, the loss of estate to the respondents comes to Rs.6,51,955/- as against Rs.6,82,752/-, which was determined by the Tribunal. 12. Though it was urged that the other amounts, such as compensation towards loss of consortium, funeral expenses etc., must be reduced, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. 13. The Tribunal awarded interest at 6% only. In several judgments, the Supreme Court held that in the matters arising out of the motor accidents, 7.5% is the reasonable interest. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the C.MA is partly allowed, directing that the monthly loss of dependency for the respondents 1 to 4 shall be taken as Rs.5,199/-, instead of Rs.4,064/-, and that the multiplier 10.45 shall be applied, instead of 14; the compensation awarded to the respondents shall stand reduced from Rs.7,27,752/- to Rs.6,96,955/-. The compensation shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing the O.P. The directions issued by the Tribunal, as to apportionment and fixed deposit shall remain intact. There shall be no order as to costs.