JUDGMENT M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J. 1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited preferred this Appeal aggrieved by the order dated 06.05.2009, passed in O.P. No. 685 of 2006 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad, whereunder the claim petition filed by the respondents 1 to 3 herein, under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (For short, 'the Act'), was allowed awarding compensation of Rs. 12,96,872/- as against the original claim of Rs. 10,00,000/-. The appellant herein was the second respondent and the respondents 1 to 3 herein were the petitioners-claimants and fourth respondent herein was first respondent before the Tribunal in O.P. No. 685 of 2006. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as appellant and respondents. 2. Respondents 1 to 3 herein filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- under various heads, for untimely death of K. Veerendra Babu, who happened to be son of first and second respondents and younger brother of third respondent, in a road accident that occurred on 31.05.2006 at about 11:30 p.m. while Veerendra Babu was proceeding on a Hero Honda motor cycle bearing No. AP29J 4998 and when reached near petrol pump, Chintalkunta, a lorry bearing No. WB-19-A-0877, being driven at high speed in rash and negligent manner, without following the traffic rules, dashed the motor cycle of Veerendra Babu from its rear side, as a result of which Veerendra Babu, rider of the motorcycle along with his friend pillion rider fell down; Veerendra Babu succumbed to injuries on the spot and his friend, who was a pillion rider, sustained grievous injuries. Thus, the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of driver of lorry bearing No. WB-19-A-0877. 3. Immediately, the accident was reported to Police concerned and the same was registered as a case in Crime No. 469 of 2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 337 of I.P.C. against the driver of lorry and issued F.I.R., marked as Ex. A-1. 3. Immediately, the accident was reported to Police concerned and the same was registered as a case in Crime No. 469 of 2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 337 of I.P.C. against the driver of lorry and issued F.I.R., marked as Ex. A-1. Deceased Veerendra Babu was the only son to his parents, hale and healthy at the time of accident and aged 19 years, studying B.Tech., I year and was a brilliant student having bright future, had he been alive he would have earned not less than Rs. 10,000/- p.m. but due to sudden death of Veerendra Babu, respondents 1 to 3 being parents and un-married sister lost the dependency, love and affection, future income and loss of estate etc., Fourth respondent herein, was the owner of lorry bearing No. WB-19-A-0877 and the appellant herein, was insurer of the vehicle and since the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry, whom the fourth respondent herein engaged as driver, insurance policy was subsisting as on the date of accident covering the risk of third parties, appellant being insurer of the vehicle is liable to indemnify the loss sustained by fourth respondent, owner of the vehicle. Hence, the appellant and fourth respondents are, jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and prayed to award total compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- for untimely death of Veerendra Babu in the road accident. 4. Fourth respondent herein remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. The appellant filed counter denying the material allegations of the petition inter-alia contending that the accident occurred not due to negligence of the driver of lorry bearing No. WB-19-A-0877 and that the accident occurred only due to negligence of deceased Veerandra Babu, rider of the motor cycle bearing No. AP29J-4998 and respondents 1 to 3 herein were called upon to prove the age and educational qualifications of the deceased Veerendra-Babu and put the same to strict proof. Finally, it is contended that the lorry was not insured with the appellant and the driver of lorry was not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and thereby the fourth respondent herein violated the terms and conditions of policy, consequently, appellant is not liable to pay any compensation and prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. Finally, it is contended that the lorry was not insured with the appellant and the driver of lorry was not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and thereby the fourth respondent herein violated the terms and conditions of policy, consequently, appellant is not liable to pay any compensation and prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. Basing on the above pleadings and perusing the material available on record, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the deceased namely K. Veerendra Babu died in Motor vehicle accident on 31.05.2006 due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No. WB-19-A-0877, by its driver? 2. What was the age and income of the deceased? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation? If so, how much amount and from which of the respondent? 4. To what relief? 6. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 herein, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-6 and Exs. X-1 to X-3 were marked. On behalf of the second respondent herein, none were examined and no documents were marked. 7. Upon hearing arguments of both the counsel and considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No. WB-19-A-0877 and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 12,96,872/- in favour of respondents 1 to 3 herein. 8. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant preferred this Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, raising several contentions. The first three grounds of which pertains to challenge of the finding of Tribunal regarding manner of accident and the last ground pertains to quantum of compensation. Thus, the appellant challenged both the findings regarding rash and negligence on the part of driver of lorry bearing No. WB-19-A-0877 and quantum of compensation. 9. The first three grounds of which pertains to challenge of the finding of Tribunal regarding manner of accident and the last ground pertains to quantum of compensation. Thus, the appellant challenged both the findings regarding rash and negligence on the part of driver of lorry bearing No. WB-19-A-0877 and quantum of compensation. 9. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the compensation assessed by the Tribunal is excessive and that the accident occurred not due to negligent act of driver of lorry bearing No. WB-19-A-0877 and that the accident occurred only due to negligent act of the rider of the motor cycle i.e., deceased Veerendra Babu, apart from that the expected income of deceased cannot be accepted at this stage, in view of the other contingencies in future and placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Company Limited and another (2010) 10 SCC 254 . On the strength of judgment of the Apex Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra(1st supra), learned Standing Counsel for the appellant contended that the expected income of deceased shall be fixed at Rs. 60,000/- per annum that means at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- p.m. and certain deductions towards his personal and living expenses shall be made, thereafter the compensation at best would not exceed more than Rs.8,00,000/- and prayed to award just and reasonable compensation in terms of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra (supra). 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 argued totally in support of the finding recorded by the Tribunal and that apart, the income of an office subordinate during these days would not be less than Rs. 10,000/- p.m. and an engineering graduate is supposed to earn, more than an Office Subordinate or Class-IV employee in the Government Offices. However, the deceased Veerendra Babu was a brilliant student and certainly he would earn not less than Rs. 25,000/- p.m. after completion of his engineering course in case employed in any organization or in any government employment. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side, however, restricted their claim to the amount awarded by the Tribunal and prayed to dismiss the Appeal. 11. Considering rival contentions and perusing the material available on record, the points that arise for consideration are: "1. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side, however, restricted their claim to the amount awarded by the Tribunal and prayed to dismiss the Appeal. 11. Considering rival contentions and perusing the material available on record, the points that arise for consideration are: "1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No. WB-19-A-0877 and whether deceased Veerendra Babu received injuries in the said accident, died due to those injuries? 2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? If not, what will be the just and reasonable compensation?" 12. Point No. 1: Respondents 1 to 3 herein filed a petition before the Tribunal alleging that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No. WB-19-A-0877 and contended that while deceased Veerandra Babu and his friend was proceeding on a Hero Honda motorcycle, reached near petrol pump, Chintalkunta, lorry bearing No. WB-19-A-0877, came from their behind and hit the motorcycle, but the appellant-Insurance Company denied the manner of accident. However, the Tribunal believed the manner of accident as pleaded by respondents 1 to 3 herein, the same finding is challenged before us. 13. To prove the manner of accident, respondents 1 to 3 herein examined mother of deceased, Kunapareddy Saroja as P.W. 1 and Buchireddy Durga Simha as P.W. 2 and marked Exs. A-1 to A-5 to prove the occurrence of accident due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. WB-19-A-0877. As seen from the evidence on record, P.W. 1 though stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry, she is only mother of deceased Veerendra Babu not an eye witness to the occurrence of accident, therefore, her evidence regarding manner of accident needs no consideration. P.W. 2 is an eye witness to the occurrence of accident, he explained the manner of accident in his examination-in-chief as he is an injured in the same accident being the pillion rider of the motorcycle and studying B.Tech., I year along with the deceased Veerendra Babu. In the entire cross-examination nothing was elicited to disprove his presence at the time of accident and sustaining injuries in the same accident. In the entire cross-examination nothing was elicited to disprove his presence at the time of accident and sustaining injuries in the same accident. Therefore, his presence at the place of accident being the pillion rider of the motor cycle cannot be doubted, when the injured himself is the witness, the Tribunal can place reliance on the testimony of such witness. Therefore, the evidence of P.W. 2 is worthy of credence and basing on the same the Tribunal rightly concluded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. WB-09-A-0877. 14. As per the pleadings and evidence on record, the lorry hit the motorcycle from its behind, in such a case the principle of res-ipsa-loquitur can be applied, which means things speaks for itself. If that is applied, the finding of the Tribunal can be accepted without any hesitation. When the motorcycle is proceeding in a particular direction ahead to the lorry bearing No. WB-09-A-0877 at the time of accident both lorry and motorcycle were proceeding-in the same direction but the rider of the motorcycle is not supposed to observe what was coming behind him except with the help of side mirror, but it is in rare cases to observe the vehicles from its behind, more particularly, on the roads where vehicular traffic is more, whereas it is the duty of the driver of lorry to observe what was proceeding ahead to the lorry to avert the accident or hitting the vehicles and failure to take reasonable care and caution while driving the lorry and hitting the vehicle proceeding ahead is nothing but failure to discharge his duty being an ordinary prudent driver exercising due care and caution and such act amounts to rash and negligent act on his part. Therefore, basing on the circumstances of the case, it can safely be concluded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the driver of lorry bearing No. WB-09-A-0877. Therefore, basing on the circumstances of the case, it can safely be concluded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the driver of lorry bearing No. WB-09-A-0877. Though the appellant denied occurrence of accident due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the lorry, obviously for different reasons, did not take any steps to examine the driver of lorry, who is a competent witness to speak about the manner of accident and no evidence is brought on record to disprove the manner of accident as pleaded by respondents 1 to 3 herein or to substantiate the plea raised by the appellant. In the absence of examination of the driver of lorry or any other independent witness who witnessed the occurrence of accident, we have no hesitation to accept the evidence of injured witness, P.W. 2 and conclude that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent act of the driver of lorry bearing No. WB-09-A-0877. The earliest version of respondents 1 to 3 in the F.I.R. also shows that the accident lorry hit the motorcycle from its behind, which resulted in death of Veerendra Babu, the certified copy of Motor Vehicle Inspectors report, marked as Ex. A-5, further discloses that the accident occurred not due to any mechanical defect, in such a case the cause for the accident might be due to negligence on the part of driver of lorry, otherwise, there is no possibility for occurrence of accident. Thus, the cumulative effect of oral and documentary evidence is that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No. WB-19-A-0877. 15. Mere proof of occurrence of accident due to rash and negligent driving of driver of lorry bearing No. WB-19-A-0877 is not sufficient and it is incumbent on the respondents 1 to 3 to prove that deceased Veerendra Babu received injuries in the accident and succumbed to the injuries. To substantiate the same, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and they categorically spoke about the injuries sustained by Veerendra Babu in the same accident and documentary evidence marked as Exs. A-3 and A-4, certified copies of post-mortem examination report and inquest report supports deceased Veerendra Babu received injuries in the accident and succumbed to the injuries. 16. To substantiate the same, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and they categorically spoke about the injuries sustained by Veerendra Babu in the same accident and documentary evidence marked as Exs. A-3 and A-4, certified copies of post-mortem examination report and inquest report supports deceased Veerendra Babu received injuries in the accident and succumbed to the injuries. 16. On overall consideration of the entire material available on record, we find that the Tribunal did commit no error warranting interference of this Court in this Appeal and we are totally in agreement with the findings recorded by the Tribunal with regard to manner of accident. Hence, we hold that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No. WB-19-A-0877 and Veerendra Babu received injuries in the said accident and succumbed to the injuries. Accordingly, the point is held in favour of respondents 1 to 3 herein and against the appellant. 17. Point No. 2: Learned counsel for the appellant challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, more particularly, award of Rs. 12,96,872/- though the claim was restricted to' Rs. 10,00,000/- the Tribunal fixed the expected income of the deceased at Rs. 10,000/- p.m. and awarded Rs.12,96,872/-. Now, it is questioned on the ground that there are several contingencies in future and there is no guarantee of even getting a job by any engineering graduate and placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra (1st supra) wherein the Apex Court while referring to its earlier judgments in Reshma Kumari and others v. Madan Mohan and another 2013 (1) An.W.R. 808 (SC) : 2013 (3) SCJ 481 : 2013 ACJ 1253, General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas and others 1994 (1) An.W.R. 26 (SC) : 1994 (1) ALT 1 (SC) : 1994 ACJ 1, concluded that an Engineering graduate ccn at least earn" Rs. 60,000/- per annum taking salary and allowances payable to an Assistant Engineer in public employment and awarded total compensation of Rs.9,06,000/- out of which Rs. 7,56,000/- was towards future loss of earnings proportionate to 70% of permanent partial disability and Rs. 60,000/- per annum taking salary and allowances payable to an Assistant Engineer in public employment and awarded total compensation of Rs.9,06,000/- out of which Rs. 7,56,000/- was towards future loss of earnings proportionate to 70% of permanent partial disability and Rs. 1,50,000/- towards treatment including the medical expenses, but the principles laid down in Arvind Kumar Mishra (supra) is not applicable to the present facts of the case for the reason that the accident was occurred on 23.06.1993 by then the income of an Assistant Engineer was Rs. 5,000/- p.m. but by the date of accident in this case i.e., in the year 1999 the salary of an Assistant Engineer in a public employment increased many fold and even an Attender or an office subordinate is getting more than Rs. 10,000/- p.m. in any public employment, certainly, the salary of an Engineering graduate is supposed to be more than an office subordinate or Attender in any public employment. Therefore, the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra (supra) cannot be applied to the present facts of the case for fixing expected salary of deceased Veerendra Babu. Even assuming for a moment that a coolie is getting not less than Rs. 200/- per day now a days and his income would be not less than Rs. 6,000/- p.m. Therefore, assessing income of an Engineering Graduate at Rs. 5,000/- p.m. if nothing but an absurdity as on the date of accident in the present case. Hence, we are unable to accept the income of an Engineering graduate would be at Rs.5,000/- p.m. 18. In B. Ramulamma and others v. Venkatesh, Bus Union, Rep. by A.M. Velu Mudaliar and another 2009 (6) ALT 784 : 2009 (2) An.W.R. 751 (D.B.) : 2009 (6) ALD 684 (DB), the Division Bench of this Court relying on principles laid down by the Apex Court in catena of judgments considering the normal scales being earned by the Government employees, the minimum salary of a technical person, who is holding a bachelor degree in computers or electronics or mechanical, can be taken as Rs. 12,000/- per month and took the income of deceased therein who were studying B.E., final year at Rs. 12,000/- p.m. and after deducting 50% towards their personal and living expenses, awarded to the claimants of each deceased an amount of Rs. 10,80,000/-. 19. 12,000/- per month and took the income of deceased therein who were studying B.E., final year at Rs. 12,000/- p.m. and after deducting 50% towards their personal and living expenses, awarded to the claimants of each deceased an amount of Rs. 10,80,000/-. 19. In view of the principles laid down in the decisions cited supra, it is clear that an Engineering graduate is supposed to get not less than Rs. 12,000/- p.m. if employed. In any event, the income of an Engineering graduate would not be less than an office subordinate in public office. Therefore, the income of an Engineering graduate shall be taken at Rs. 12,000/- p.m. but the Tribunal assessed the income of an Engineering graduate only at Rs. 10,000/- p.m. Therefore, we find no illegality in assessing the compensation by the Tribunal fixing monthly income of deceased at Rs. 10,000/- and on the other hand, it is far below the expected income of an Engineering graduate in the decisions cited supra. Hence, fixing the monthly salary of deceased Veerendra Babu is not an illegality committed by the Tribunal. Moreover, we are totally in agreement with the monthly income assessed by the Tribunal in view of the principles laid down in the above judgments and accordingly expected income of deceased Veerendra Babu is fixed at Rs. 10,000/- p.m. as claimed by petitioners. 20. For assessment of compensation in case of death claims of a deceased bachelor age of the deceased alone shall be taken relying on the principles laid down by the Apex Court in several judgments including the decision of the Apex Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra (supra), Wherein the Apex Court applied the multiplier 18' taking the age of injured therein but the same can squarely be applied to the present facts of the case since it was an injury claim. 21. For adopting the appropriate multiplier applicable to the age group of deceased, who was a bachelor, the Apex Court in Amrit Bhanu Shali and others v. National Insurance Company Limited and others 2012 (2) An.W.R. 291 (SC) : 2012 (6) SCT 9 : 2012 ACJ 2002 held as follows: "17. The selection of multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of dependant. The selection of multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of dependant. There may be a number of dependants of the deceased whose age may be different and, therefore, the age of dependents has no nexus with the computation of compensation." 22. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Reshma Kumari (supra) held as follows: "34. If the multiplier as indicated in column (4) of the Table read with para 21 of the Report in Sarla Verma (supra), is followed, the wide variations in the selection of multiplier in the claims of compensation in fatal accident cases can be avoided. A standard method for selection of multiplier is surely better than a criss-cross of varying methods. It is high time that we move to a standard method of selection of multiplier, income for future prospects and deduction for personal and living expenses. The Courts in some of the overseas jurisdictions have made this advance. It is for these reasons, we think we must approve the Table in Sarla Verma (supra) for the selection of multiplier in claim applications made under Section 166 in the cases of death. We do accordingly. If for the selection of multiplier, column (4) of the Table in Sarla Verma (supra) is followed, there is no likelihood of the claimants who have chosen to apply under Section 166 being awarded lesser amount on proof of negligence on the part of the driver of the motor vehicle than those who prefer to apply under Section163-A. As regards the cases where the age of the victim happens to be up to 15 years, we are of the considered opinion that in such cases irrespective of Section163-A or Section 166 under which the claim for compensation has been made, multiplier of 15 and the assessment as indicated in the Second Schedule subject to correction as pointed out in column (6) of the Table in Sarla Verma (supra) should be followed. This is to ensure that claimants in such cases are not awarded lesser amount when the application is made under Section 166 of the 1988 Act. In all other cases of death where the application has been made under Section 166, the multiplier as indicated in column (4), of the Table in Sarla Verma (supra) should be followed. 39. This is to ensure that claimants in such cases are not awarded lesser amount when the application is made under Section 166 of the 1988 Act. In all other cases of death where the application has been made under Section 166, the multiplier as indicated in column (4), of the Table in Sarla Verma (supra) should be followed. 39. In what we have discussed above," we sum up our conclusions as follows: "(i) In the applications for compensation made under Section 166 of the 1988 Act in death cases where the age of the deceased is 15 years and above, the Claims Tribunals shall select the multiplier as indicated in column (4) of the Table prepared in Sarla Verma (supra), read with para 21 of that judgment. (ii) In cases where the age of the deceased is up to 15 years, irrespective of Section 166 or Section 163-A under which the claim for compensation has been made, multiplier of 15 and the assessment as indicated in the Second Schedule subject to correction as pointed out in column (6) of the Table in Sarla Verma (supra) should be followed. (iii) As a result of the above, while considering the claim applications made under Section 166 in death cases where the age of the deceased is above 15 years, there is no necessity for the claims Tribunals to seek guidance or for placing reliance on the Second Schedule in the 1988 Act. (iv) The Claims Tribunals shall follow the steps and guidelines stated in para 9 of Sarla Verma (supra) for determination of compensation in cases of death. (v) While making addition to income for future prospects, the Tribunals shall follow para 11 of the judgment in Sarla Verma (supra). (vi) Insofar as deduction for personal and living expenses is concerned, it is directed that the Tribunals shall ordinarily follow the standards prescribed in paras 14 and 15 of the judgment in Sarla Verma (supra) subject to the observations made by us in para 38 above. (vii) The above propositions mutatis mutandis shall apply to all pending matters where above aspects are under consideration." 23. (vii) The above propositions mutatis mutandis shall apply to all pending matters where above aspects are under consideration." 23. However, in view of the Full Bench judgment of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari (supra), we are of the considered view that the age of deceased alone shall be taken to apply appropriate multiplier and therefore the multiplier applicable to the age group of 15 to 20 years in view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (6) 2010 (1) An.W.R. 402 (SC) : 2009 (4) SCJ 91 : (2009) 6 SCC 121 is 18'. Hence, multiplier 18 is applicable to the present facts of the case for assessment of compensation. 24. In case of death claims where the deceased is a bachelor, half of the income shall be deducted towards his personal and living expenses and thereby the monthly contribution to the family of the deceased comes to Rs. 5,000/- p.m. and it would come to Rs. 60,000/- per annum, if the same is multiplied with the appropriate multiplier applicable to the age group of deceased i.e., 18', the loss of dependency and future income would be Rs. 10,80,000/-. Therefore, respondents 1 to 3 herein are entitled to Rs. 10,80,000/- towards loss of dependency and future earnings on account of untimely death of Veerendra Babu. But the Tribunal erroneously deducted only 1/3rd income towards his personal and living expenses from the expected monthly income of the deceased and also applied the wrong multiplier of 16' contained in second column in second schedule of Section 163 of Motor Vehicles Act, which is erroneous on the face of record and contrary to the principles laid down by the Apex Court. In addition, the Tribunal also awarded an amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses of the deceased. If the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 2013 (4) ALT 35 (SC) : 2013 (2) An.W.R. 101 (SC) : 2013 ACJ 1403, are applied to the present facts of the case, respondents 1 to 3 herein are entitled to an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of estate and love and affection and Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses and the same is awarded by this Court. 1,00,000/- towards loss of estate and love and affection and Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses and the same is awarded by this Court. But, the Tribunal erroneously awarded only an amount of Rs. 17,000/- under both heads, which is erroneous on the face of record." Thus, in view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court, respondents 1 to 3 herein are entitled to an amount of Rs. 12,05,000/-, the Tribunal by applying wrong multiplier and deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses of the deceased erroneously awarded an amount of Rs.12,96,872/-. Hence, respondents 1 to 3 are entitled to an amount of Rs. 12,05,000/- Accordingly, this point is held in favour of the appellant and against the respondents 1 to 3. Another aspect to be considered in this Appeal is rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of 9% p.a. on the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal. In a recent judgment of the Apex Court in Rebeka Minz and others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited and another (8) 2012 (6) SCJ 342 : 2012 ACJ 2328, Apex Court awarded interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. In another judgment of the Apex Court reported in Didcina Fernandes and others v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz and another 2013 (8) SCJ 536 the Apex Court awarded interest at the rate of 6% p.a. but, whereas in another recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza and others v. Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service 2013 (8) SCJ 806 the Apex Court awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. In any of the judgments referred to above, there was no specific contention regarding rate of interest but still the Hon'ble Supreme Court awarded different rates of interest, as stated above. Thus, there is some inconsistency in awarding rate of interest in the above referred judgments. However, learned counsel for the appellant during his arguments conceded for grant of interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realization. Thus, there is some inconsistency in awarding rate of interest in the above referred judgments. However, learned counsel for the appellant during his arguments conceded for grant of interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realization. In view of the different rates of interest granted by the Apex Court in the judgments referred to above, we are of the considered view that the rate of interest awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad, is excessive, as it is not prevailing rate of interest in Nationalized or schedule bank rates. The Tribunal did not exercise its discretion judiciously and in accordance with the principles laid down in various decisions, hence the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is reduced from 9% to 7% p.a. In the result, the Appeal is allowed, in part, reducing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs. 12,96,872/- to Rs. 12,05,000/- and reduced the rate of interest on the amount of compensation awarded by the Court from 9% to 7% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. The other conditions stipulated by the Tribunal remained unaltered. In consequence, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Appeal, shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.