JUDGMENT T Amarnath Goud, J. - Macma.No.3314 of 2011 is filed by the insurance company and Cross Objection No.33 of 2019 is filed by the claimant challenging the Award dated 21.02.2011 in MVOP.No.71 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Warangal (for short, the Tribunal). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 22.05.2006 at about 9.00 pm., while the petitioner was returning to Laxmakkapally Village in auto bearing No.AP1U 3354, and when the auto reached Ravulagadda, the India car bearing No.AP36L 299 came in opposite in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the auto. In the said accident, the petitioner sustained fracture to neck of right femur, commuted compound fracture (rupture) of right fibia and fibula and simple injuries all over the body. The petitioner filed aforesaid MVOP claiming compensation of Rs. 9,83,000/- against the respondents, owner and insurer of the car respectively, for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. 4. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 remained ex parte. Respondent No.2 filed counter denying the averments of the claim petition and contended that the amount claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car and awarded total compensation of Rs. 7,90,112/-, with interest @ 6% per annum. Challenging the same, the insurance company filed MACMA.No.3314 of 2011 on the ground that the Tribunal granted excess compensation, while the claimant filed Cross Objection No.33 of 2019, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, seeking enhancement of the same. 6. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/insurance company submitted that though the petitioner did not produce sufficient evidence to prove his income, the Tribunal erroneously fixed the income of the petitioner at Rs. 4,000/- per month, which is excessive. He further submitted that the age of the petitioner was 35 years at the time of accident and the appropriate multiplier as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt.Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 6 SCC 121 is 15', but the Tribunal wrongly took the multiplier 16'. 4,000/- per month, which is excessive. He further submitted that the age of the petitioner was 35 years at the time of accident and the appropriate multiplier as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt.Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 6 SCC 121 is 15', but the Tribunal wrongly took the multiplier 16'. Basing on the above submissions, he seeks to reduce the compensation amount. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/Cross Objector submitted that the Tribunal lost the sight of the fact that the petitioner has produced sufficient evidence to show that he was earning Rs. 4,500/- per month as a Mason, and erroneously fixed his income at Rs. 4,000/- per month, which is, in fact, low and meager. He further submitted that the Tribunal granted interest @ 6%, which is meager and seeks to enhance the compensation. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner was working as a Mason. Though the petitioner claimed that as a Mason he was earning Rs. 4,500/- per month, he could not produce any evidence to prove his income. In the circumstances, the Tribunal fixed the income of the petitioner at Rs. 4,000/- per month which is just and proper and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. Hence, the argument of both the counsel on this aspect is rejected. 9. It is evident from the record that the petitioner was aged 35 years at the time of accident, and as per Smt.Sarla Varma's case (supra), the appropriate multiplier is 16', but the Tribunal erroneously adopted multiplier 17'. Hence, the multiplier is modified to 16'. Accordingly, the compensation under the head 'loss of future earnings' comes to Rs. 6,91,200/- (Rs.43,200/- X 16). The other amounts granted by the Tribunal are just and proper and need no interference. Therefore, the total compensation amount comes to Rs. 7,48,912/- instead of Rs. 7,90,112/-. 10. Coming to the interest aspect, the Tribunal granted interest @ 6% per annum on the awarded amount, which is very low and the same is enhanced to 7.5% per annum by taking into account the prevailing bank rate of interest. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 6,91,200/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 11. In the result, MACMA.No.3314 of 2011 is partly allowed reducing the compensation amount from Rs. 7,90,112/- to Rs. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 6,91,200/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 11. In the result, MACMA.No.3314 of 2011 is partly allowed reducing the compensation amount from Rs. 7,90,112/- to Rs. 6,91,200/- and Cross Objection No.33 of 2019 is also partly allowed, enhancing the rate of interest from 6% to 7.5% per year. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.