JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by respondent No. 2 - United India Insurance Company Limited in OP No. 580 of 2004 (old OP No. 238 of 2003) on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet against the order dated 3.1.2005 whereby and whereunder the claimants were awarded the compensation in toto i.e., Rs. 9,50,000/- as claimed by them for the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed in the O.P. 3. The brief facts of the case that led to filing the present appeal are that on 10.11.2002 the deceased - Ponugoti Sampath Rao was travelling as passenger in steering auto bearing No. AP-24-U-2084 from Penpahad to reach Suryapet and when the auto reached K.M. Stone No. 2/3 at the outskirts of Singireddypalem, it was turned turtle and fell into Mondikuntabavi due to rash and negligent driving of the auto by its driver, as a result thereof, the deceased and other passengers travelling in the auto sustained grievous injuries. The deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Suryapet and thereafter, he was shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Malakpet, Hyderabad where he succumbed to injuries on 12.11.2002. P.S. Penpahad registered a case in Crime No. 53 of 2002 for the offence under Section 337 IPC and later altered to Section 304-A IPC. The deceased was Line Inspector of Central Power Distribution Company and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 18,155/-. The petitioners are the wife and children of the deceased. 4. Respondent No. 1 - owner of the auto was set ex parte. Respondent No. 2 insurance company filed counter denying the averments made in the claim petition. 5. Basing on the pleadings, the relevant issues were framed by the Tribunal as to the rash and negligent driving of auto by its driver, and as to the death of the deceased in the motor vehicle accident and as to the entitlement to claim compensation by the petitioners and the quantum thereof and also the liability of the respondents to pay the same. 6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioners, petitioner No. 1, who is wife of the deceased, was examined as PW1 besides examining eye-witness to the accident as PW2 and Exs. A1 to A14 were marked. 6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioners, petitioner No. 1, who is wife of the deceased, was examined as PW1 besides examining eye-witness to the accident as PW2 and Exs. A1 to A14 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no evidence was adduced except marking Ex.B1-copy of insurance policy. 7. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the evidence and other material brought on record and after hearing both sides, allowed the claim petition in toto awarding compensation of Rs. 9,50,000/- as claimed by the petitioners-claimants with 9% per annum interest from the date of the petition till realisation. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been preferred by the insurance company. 8. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company respondent No. 2-appellant and the learned Counsel for the petitioners-claimants. 9. The learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 contended that the Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier "8" by following the second schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, instead of applying appropriate multiplier by following the decision in Bhagwan Das v. Mohd. Arif, 1987 (2) ALT 137 . The learned Counsel contended that the Tribunal failed to see that petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are majors and they are not dependents on the income of the deceased. The learned Counsel also contended that the Tribunal erred in taking the gross income of the deceased while computing the compensation. 10. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the petitioners-claimants submitted that, though, petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are majors, they are not gainfully employed and they are dependents on the income of the deceased, and as such, taking into consideration all the aspects and the material available on record, the Tribunal has awarded just compensation which is not liable to be interfered with by this Court. 11. It is seen that the deceased was a Government employee drawing Rs. 18,000/- per month and he was aged 56 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal has taken the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs. 16,000/- though as per Ex. A10-salary certificate, his salary was Rs. 18,000/- per month and deducted 1/3rd towards his personal expenses as there are four dependents. The petitioners are legal heirs of the deceased. Though, petitioner Nos. The Tribunal has taken the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs. 16,000/- though as per Ex. A10-salary certificate, his salary was Rs. 18,000/- per month and deducted 1/3rd towards his personal expenses as there are four dependents. The petitioners are legal heirs of the deceased. Though, petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are majors, it cannot be said that they are not dependents on the deceased since there is no proof on record to show that they are earning substantial income. Further, the decision relied on by the learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 in Bhagwan Das v. Mohd. Arif (supra), with regard to application of appropriate multiplier, cannot be taken into consideration in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (3) ALD 83 (SC) = 2009 ACJ 1298 . In the circumstances and having regard to the material available on record, this Court is of the view that the impugned order so far as granting quantum of compensation is concerned does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality and the same deserves and is hereby confirmed. But however, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (supra), the rate of the interest granted by the Tribunal has to be reduced from 9% per annum to 6% per annum, and the same is hereby reduced to 6% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.