JUDGMENT : G. Shyam Prasad, J. 1. This appeal is arising out of the Order dated 5.5.2005 passed in OP No. 885 of 2003 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Prl. District Judge, Nellore. 2. The appellant in the present appeal is Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company, respondent No. 2 in OP No. 885 of 2003. 3. Heard Sri Srinivas, Advocate, appearing on behalf of Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned Counsel for the appellant, and Sri P. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/- per month though II Schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act provides for taking the notional income as Rs. 15,000/- per annum. 5. As far as this contention is concerned, in the light of the judgments in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 (3) ALD 83 (SC) : (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Lata Wadhwa and others v. State of Bihar, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , notional income of the deceased can be taken into consideration basing on the facts and circumstances of the case. This is a case where the deceased was working as milk vendor having a dairy farm and also working as broker and earning Rs. 6,000/- per month. The deceased was aged about 28 years and running a dairy farm, and doing broker business in grains, tobacco, pulses and cattle apart from doing agriculture and milk business and earning Rs. 6,000/- per month. The Tribunal has taken the income of the appellant as Rs. 4,500/- per month basing on the evidence available on record. PW 3 is 3rd party in this case. He deposed that the deceased-Sreenivasulu Reddy was doing business on commission in paddy and cattle besides selling milk and was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month. Even in the cross-examination, he asserted the same facts. There is no other evidence brought on record that he was not earning the income as stated above. It is not uncommon that a person working an agriculturist having so many occupations would earn Rs. 4,500/- per month. In Syed Sadiq Etc. v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company, Civil Appeal Nos. 662-664 of 2014 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. It is not uncommon that a person working an agriculturist having so many occupations would earn Rs. 4,500/- per month. In Syed Sadiq Etc. v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company, Civil Appeal Nos. 662-664 of 2014 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 16739-16741 of 2012 reported in 2014 (2) ALD 133 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that notional income of a vegetable vendor can be taken into consideration as Rs. 6,500/- per month. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal with regard to taking the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/- per month does not require any interference. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are the parents of the deceased. Respondent No. 2, who is the daughter of the deceased, was aged about 3 years by the date of filing OP. Respondent No. 4 was appointed as a guardian to respondent No. 2, in place of respondent No. 1, vide Court Order dated 31.10.2018 in MACMA MP No. 4443 of 2017. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that respondent No. 1 has filed affidavit stating that after her re-marriage, she is not intending to take her share of compensation and the compensation entitled by her is sought to be awarded to respondent No. 2. As far as this submission is concerned, the respondents may file an appropriate application before the Tribunal for consideration of their request along with their affidavits and the Tribunal shall consider the same in accordance with law. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is 9%, which is excessive, and therefore, requested to reduce the rate of interest to 7.5%. 9. In view of catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the rate of interest is being awarded at 7.5% per annum in many cases similar to the facts of this case. Therefore, the rate of interest is reduced to 7.5% per annum from 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal in awarding compensation of Rs. 6,74,075/-. 11. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed reducing the rate of interest to 7.5% per annum from 9% per annum on the compensation amount of Rs. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal in awarding compensation of Rs. 6,74,075/-. 11. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed reducing the rate of interest to 7.5% per annum from 9% per annum on the compensation amount of Rs. 6,74,075/- awarded by the Tribunal with proportionate costs and interest. The remaining part of the Award is intact. The appellant is directed to deposit the remaining amount of compensation within a period of Eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. On such deposit, the respondents/claimants are entitled to withdraw their share of compensation as fixed by the Tribunal. 12. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.