JUDGMENT (Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 16.07.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.373 of 2014, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Court of Small Causes, Chennai.) S. Sounthar, J. 1. Aggrieved by an award dated 16.07.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (II Court of Small Causes), Chennai, the appellant/Insurance company has come up with this appeal. 2. The respondents 1 to 3 being wife, minor daughter and mother of deceased filed Motor Accident Claim Petition in MCOP.No.373 of 2014, claiming compensation for the death of one Balamurugan. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged about 28 years at the time of accident and he held the position of Senior Executive, Accounts in Akshaya Private Limited, received a salary of Rs.35,000/- per month. It was averred in the claim petition that on 28.12.2013, when the deceased was riding a motor cycle at the Junction of Velacherry Main Road and Kamalapuram Main Road from East to West, a Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No.TN-22-CV-0240 owned by 4th respondent and insured with the appellant came in the opposite direction from West to East in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the vehicle of the deceased. The deceased died on the spot. The respondents 1 to 3 claimed compensation of Rs.1,22,00,000/- for the death of Balamurugan. 3. The 4th respondent/owner of the vehicle remained ex-parte before the Tribunal and the claim was contested by the appellant/Insurance company by filing counter. In the counter, the appellant denied the averments in the claim petition, with regard to the manner of accident. The Insurance company averred that the insurer of the motor cycle of the deceased was a necessary party to this claim petition and hence, raised the plea of non-joinder. It was also claimed that the averments in the claim petition were exaggerated to create sympathy for getting higher award. 4. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent/widow of the deceased was examined as PW.1. One Leela Vinothan, eye witness to the occurrence and also complainant in FIR was examined as PW.2. The Officer working in the HR Department of employer of the deceased was examined as PW.3. The officer of the bank in which, the deceased had bank account was examined as PW.4. Exs.P1 to P27 were marked on behalf of the claimants. One Leela Vinothan, eye witness to the occurrence and also complainant in FIR was examined as PW.2. The Officer working in the HR Department of employer of the deceased was examined as PW.3. The officer of the bank in which, the deceased had bank account was examined as PW.4. Exs.P1 to P27 were marked on behalf of the claimants. On behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company, no witness was examined and no exhibit was marked. 5. On the basis of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tata Sumo vehicle owned by 4th respondent. Since the said vehicle was duly insured with the appellant, the Tribunal held that the appellant and the 4th respondent were liable to pay compensation amount to the respondents 1 to 3 and fixed the quantum of compensation at Rs.55,50,000/- together with interest at the rate of Rs.9% per annum from the date of petition to the date of deposit. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased and hence, the Tribunal was at fault in fastening the liability on the driver of 4th respondent vehicle. He further submitted that the salary slip contains certain allowances like conveyance allowance and medical allowance which were personal in nature and the Tribunal erred in taking the gross salary into consideration without deducting those allowances, which were personal in nature. He submitted that such allowances cannot be construed as the loss to the family. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the Tribunal erred in granting an interest at the rate of 9% per annum having regard to the low inflation scenario at the date of accident. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Tribunal based on evidence of eye witness PW.2 coupled with Ex.P1-FIR; Ex.P14-charge sheet, rightly came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle owned by 4th respondent. He further submitted that as per Exs.P22 and P24-salary of the deceased was shown as Rs.33,334/- per month. He further submitted that as per Exs.P22 and P24-salary of the deceased was shown as Rs.33,334/- per month. But, the Tribunal fixed the salary of the deceased only at Rs.28,519/- based on Ex.P11 and therefore, the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal is very much on the lower side. He also sought for confirmation of the interest at 9% as ordered by the Tribunal. 8. In order to prove the negligence of the driver of the vehicle of the 4th respondent, the respondents 1 to 3 examined one Leela vinothan, eye witness to accident as PW.2. He clearly deposed that the accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tata Sumo vehicle owned by 4th respondent. The FIR was also lodged by PW.2. Though in the FIR, the registration number of the vehicle was not mentioned, the offending vehicle was mentioned as a Tata Sumo vehicle. After investigation, the charge sheet was laid against the driver of the vehicle owned by 4th respondent and the same was marked as Ex.P14. In the charge sheet, the name of the driver and also the registration number of the Tata sumo vehicle owned by 4th respondent was clearly mentioned. The respondent has not let in any contra evidence. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of 4th respondent vehicle is sustainable and calls for no interference. 9. In order to prove the income of the deceased, the claimants marked salary certificates Ex.P11; Ex.P22-salary slip and Ex.P23-joining letter; Ex.P24 - performance and salary details. The Officer working in the HR Department of the employer of the deceased was examined as PW.3. As per Ex.P11, the salary of the deceased was mentioned as Rs.28,519/- per month. A perusal of Exs.P22 and P23 shows that the salary of deceased was mentioned as Rs.33,334/- per month. However, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased only at Rs.28,519/- by taking into consideration Ex.P11 only. If other document namely Exs.P22 and P24 are taken into consideration, the income of the deceased should be fixed on higher side. Hence, we feel that the income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.28,519/- calls for no interference and the same was confirmed. 10. If other document namely Exs.P22 and P24 are taken into consideration, the income of the deceased should be fixed on higher side. Hence, we feel that the income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.28,519/- calls for no interference and the same was confirmed. 10. The Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of Rs.9% per annum and the same is excessive in the present scenario of low bank interest rate. The prevailing Bank interest rate is a guiding factor while fixing interest rate payable on quantum of compensation. Hence, we deem it appropriate to reduce the interest rate from 9% to 7.5% per annum. 11. In the result: (a) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed by modifying the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal from 9% to 7.5% per annum. The award is confirmed in other respects. (b) The appellant insurance company is directed to deposit the award amount now determined in this appeal, if not already deposited, along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (c) On such deposit, the respondents 1 and 3 are permitted to withdraw their respective share along with interest and costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn. (d) The second respondent, who was a minor at the time of filing the claim petition is permitted to withdraw her respective share by satisfying the Tribunal about the fact of her attaining majority. (e) The appellant Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw excess amount if any, already deposited over and above the compensation amount now determined in this appeal. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.