JUDGMENT : 1. The son of the respondents 1 and 2 herein, by name, Ayila Nagamohan, was working as a Mason in Hyderabad. On 14-11-2008, he was proceeding on a Motorcycle along with another person from Cherlapalli to Mallapur. A lorry bearing No. AP 13 W 6922 owned by the 3rd respondent, driven by the 4th respondent and insured with the appellant, dashed against the motorcycle, resulting in instantaneous death of Nagamohan. The respondents 1 and 2 filed M.V.O.P. No. 225 of 2009 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ongole, claiming compensation. They pleaded that the deceased was working as Mason and earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. According to them, the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the 4th respondent and the appellant and the 3rd respondent are under obligation to pay the compensation. The OP was opposed by the appellant alone. The other respondents in the O.P. remained ex parte. The appellant disputed the plea as to the wages of the deceased as well as its obligation to pay the compensation. Through its award, dated 16-06-2010, the Tribunal held that the respondents 1 and 2 are entitled to be paid a sum of Rs. 4,77,500/- as compensation. The same is challenged in this MACMA. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The occurrence of the accident and the involvement of the lorry insured with the appellant, is not disputed. The Tribunal recorded the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 on behalf the respondents 1 and 2 and took on record Exs.A-1 to A-5. On behalf of the appellant, no oral evidence was adduced. The only document filed by them as Ex.B-1 was nothing but a copy of the Insurance Policy. The finding recorded by the Tribunal as to the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry does not warrant any interference. 3. Now, about the quantum of compensation. Since the deceased was an unmarried person, the age of his mother needs to be taken into account in the context of choosing the multiplier. The II Schedule referable to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, indicates that for persons of the age between 35 to 40, the multiplier shall be 16. The age of the 2nd respondent is said to be 38 years. The II Schedule referable to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, indicates that for persons of the age between 35 to 40, the multiplier shall be 16. The age of the 2nd respondent is said to be 38 years. It emerges that the Tribunal has chosen the correct multiplier. 4. It was pleaded that the income of the deceased was Rs. 5,000/- per month. No evidence was adduced in that regard. However, if one takes into account the daily wages that are paid to a Mason, it would be reasonable to take the monthly income as Rs. 4,000/-. The contribution for unmarried persons is taken as 50%. Thus, the loss of dependency to the family on account of the death of the deceased would be Rs. 24,000/- per annum. If the multiplier 16 is applied, the figure comes to Rs. 3,84,000/-. The non-mandatory benefits, that are provided for under the Act, are to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-. Therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 are entitled to be paid compensation at Rs. 3,94,000/-. The Tribunal awarded interest at 9% per annum. Recently, the Supreme Court took the view that award of interest at 7% per annum would be justified in the matters of this nature. 5. Hence, the appeal is partly allowed, reducing the compensation from Rs. 4,77,500/- to Rs. 3,94,000/- and the rate of interest from 9% to 7% per annum. There shall be no order as to costs.