JUDGMENT The appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.1386 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nalgonda, dated 19-07-2004. 2. Muthadi Narasimha Reddy going by scooter was dashed against by tanker lorry AP 31 W 2225 on 23-09-2001 killing him on the spot. His wife, four daughters and mother claimed a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the tanker lorry and on the death of the owner during the pendency of the claim; his son was impleaded as the 3rd respondent/legal representative of the deceased 1st respondent. 3. While the owner, the 3rd respondent, remained ex parte, the insurer denied the allegations of the claimants, attributed contributory negligence to the deceased and denied any liability to pay compensation. 4. PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.8 and B.1 were marked during enquiry. 5. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly holding that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, the injured wife and the eye witness, corroborated by EX.A.1-First Information Report, Ex.A.2-charge sheet and Ex.A.3-inquest report proved that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the tanker lorry. In assessing the compensation, EX.A.2 Charge sheet, Ex.A.3-Inquest Report and Ex.A.4-Post Mortem report were taken as the basis for taking the age of the deceased as 40 years. The Tribunal referred to the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 about the deceased raising vegetables in his agricultural lands at Pedda Amberpet and also doing real estate business earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Possession of Bajaj Chetak scooter was also considered apart from getting four grown up daughters educated at Hyderabad. Presuming the deceased to be having sufficient means both from agriculture and Real Estate business, the Tribunal assessed the same at Rs.4,000/-, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses and assessed the contribution to the family at Rs.4,80,000/-. The Tribunal also considered it fit to award Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of consortium and loss of estate and Rs.3,000/- towards personal (sic. funeral) expenses. The total compensation of Rs.5,13,000/- was directed to carry interest at 9% p.a. 6. The insurer challenged the said award in the appeal contending that the age of the deceased or his income was not established and in the absence of any documentary evidence, taking the income at Rs.4,000/- per month or applying the Second Schedule was incorrect. funeral) expenses. The total compensation of Rs.5,13,000/- was directed to carry interest at 9% p.a. 6. The insurer challenged the said award in the appeal contending that the age of the deceased or his income was not established and in the absence of any documentary evidence, taking the income at Rs.4,000/- per month or applying the Second Schedule was incorrect. The insurer claimed to have obtained permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act and desired the award to be reversed. 7. Heard Sri R.K. Suri, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri M. Madhava Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants/ respondents 1 to 6 and the 8th respondent remained unrepresented before this Court. 8. The insurer did not challenge the conclusion of the Tribunal about the responsibility for the accident being with the tanker lorry driver with his rash and negligent driving. The ownership of the lorry with the 1st respondent, the 3rd respondent being his son and legal representative and the subsisting insurance with the 2nd respondent were also not disputed and the joint and several liability of the respondents 2 and 3 to justly and adequately compensate the dependents of Muthadi Narasimha Reddy cannot be in dispute. 9. It is only the quantum of compensation that is to be awarded that is in question and the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act presumes an income of Rs.15,000/- p.a. even for non-earning persons. The minimum wages payable under the Minimum Wages Act at about the relevant time even to unskilled labourers would have been significantly around 70% to 80% of the income assessed by the Tribunal in respect of the deceased, who was admittedly an agriculturist and a Real Estate businessman. The positive evidence of PWs.1 and 2 in this regard was uncontroverted by any evidence for the respondents. The status of the deceased was discussed with reference to his owning a scooter and his getting his daughters educated at Hyderabad by the Tribunal and the deceased with the responsibility to maintain himself and six dependents would not have remained idle without a decent income yielding occupation. With that background, assessment of notional income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- by the Tribunal in its wisdom and experience needs to be left undisturbed in the absence of any strong grounds. With that background, assessment of notional income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- by the Tribunal in its wisdom and experience needs to be left undisturbed in the absence of any strong grounds. Deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and applying the multiplier of 15 for the age of 40 years of the deceased were in tune with the accepted principles, though as per Saria Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (1) 2010 (1) An.W.R. 402 (SC) = 2009 (4) SCJ 91 = 2009 ACJ 1298 the deduction towards personal expenses should• have been only 1/4th in view of the dependents being six in number. While the same need not be disturbed at this distance of time, the Tribunal awarded Rs.33,000/towards loss of estate, funeral expenses, loss of consortium etc., while Saria Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (stated supra) limited it to only Rs.20,000/- in total and therefore, there can be a reduction of Rs.13,000/- in the damages awarded under these heads. 10. Insofar as the interest awarded is concerned, the Tribunal adopted a rate of 9% p.a., but keeping in view the length of time for which the insurer, a custodian of public funds, has to pay such interest, the same can be limited to 7.5% p.a. in the light of the rate of interest generally adopted by the Superior Courts at about that time. 11. A reference need be made to Vinay Kumar Agarwal and another v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., and others (2) 2011 ACJ 1202 relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant concerning the assessment of the income of the deceased and the Allahabad High Court was itself referring to a decision of the Apex Court where the probable income of a skilled labourer was considered to be a minimum of Rs.3,000/- per month. The income of the deceased in that case, a partner in a partnership business was hence taken at Rs.3,000/- per month. That was more on the facts and circumstances of that case and even otherwise, if an unskilled labourer was earning Rs.3,000/per month, an agriculturist and Real Estate businessman earning Rs.4,000/- per months is an underestimate. 12. Therefore, the award has to be modified on the lines indicated above'. 13. That was more on the facts and circumstances of that case and even otherwise, if an unskilled labourer was earning Rs.3,000/per month, an agriculturist and Real Estate businessman earning Rs.4,000/- per months is an underestimate. 12. Therefore, the award has to be modified on the lines indicated above'. 13. In the result, the award dated 19-07-2004 in O.P.No.1386 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunalcum-District Judge, Nalgonda, is modified to the extent of reducing the compensation by Rs.13,000/- and reducing the interest to 7.5% p.a. and otherwise confirming the award in all other respects. The appeal is allowed accordingly in part without Costs.