JUDGMENT : The appellant is 2nd respondent/Insurance company and the respondents are claim petitioners and 1st respondent in M.V.O.P.No.322 of 2010 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Guntur. The appellant filed the appeal questioning the legal validity of the order of the Tribunal. 2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application. 3. The claim petitioners filed the petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of Angalakuduru Kanthachari, who is husband of 1st petitioner, father of 2nd petitioner and son of 3rd petitioner, in a road accident that took place on 17.02.2010. 4. The brief averments in the petition filed by the petitioners are as follows: On 17.02.2010 at about 6.30 p.m. the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.AP 16TU 1881 parked it on the road near Vittamrajupalli village, Vinukonda Mandal, Guntur District, in negligent manner without keeping parking lights. When the deceased and three others were travelling on a motor cycle bearing registration No.AP 07 AG 5763 and the person, who was riding the motor cycle, did not observe the stationed lorry and hit the same from behind, as there were no parking lights or any other signs indicating parking of the said lorry. As a result of which, all the four persons received severe injuries. One of them succumbed to injuries at the spot and another died in the Hospital at Vinukonda. The deceased succumbed to injuries on 20.02.2010 while undergoing treatment. A case in crime No.54 of 2010 was registered by Vinukonda P.S. against the driver of the lorry for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC. The 1st respondent is owner and the 2nd respondent is insurer of the lorry, hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. 5. The 1st respondent was set ex parte. The 2nd respondent/Insurance company filed a written statement by denying the manner of accident, age, occupation and income of the deceased. It is pleaded that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending lorry, hence, the Insurance company is not liable to indemnify the liability of the 1st respondent. 6. The 2nd respondent/Insurance company filed a written statement by denying the manner of accident, age, occupation and income of the deceased. It is pleaded that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending lorry, hence, the Insurance company is not liable to indemnify the liability of the 1st respondent. 6. Based on the above pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal: (1) Whether the accident occurred due to use of lorry bearing No.AP 16TU 1881? If so, Angalakuduru Kanthachari received injuries and died due to the injuries caused in the said accident? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? (3) Whether the respondents are liable to pay compensation, if any, the petitioners are entitled? 7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioner, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 and A.2 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance company, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 was marked. 8. At the culmination of the enquiry, based on the material available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the death of the deceased arose out of the use of the offending lorry and accordingly, allowed the petition awarding an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Aggrieved against the said order, the appellant/Insurance company preferred the present appeal. 9. Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the record. 10. The appellant/Insurance company contended that the Tribunal erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- without any reliable evidence and the Tribunal also erred in awarding interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. which is exorbitant. 11. Now, the point for determination is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference of this Court? 12. POINT: The claim is made under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act whereunder the petitioners need not prove the rash and negligent driving. It is sufficient to prove that the vehicle was involved in the accident. In order to establish the accident, the petitioners got examined the 1st petitioner as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 and A.2. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. It is sufficient to prove that the vehicle was involved in the accident. In order to establish the accident, the petitioners got examined the 1st petitioner as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 and A.2. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. In her evidence, P.W.1 deposed that the motor cycle, on which the deceased was travelling, hit the stationed lorry on 17.02.2010 and the deceased received injuries and succumbed to the same. The same was not disputed or denied by the 2nd respondent. Ex.A.1-certified copy of first information report and Ex.A.2-certified copy of inquest report go to show that the deceased and three others, while travelling on the motor cycle, hit the stationed lorry and received severe injuries. It is the contention of the appellant/Insurance company that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending lorry. But, the appellant failed to examine either the driver or the cleaner of the offending lorry to establish its contention. The evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.A.1 and A.2 clearly proves that the accident occurred out of the use of offending lorry. The Tribunal, on appreciating the material evidence on record, also came to the same conclusion. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal. 13. As per the evidence of P.W.1, the deceased used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month as a carpenter. Except her evidence, there is no other material on record to prove the income of the deceased. However, by giving cogent reasons, the Tribunal arrived the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- i.e., Rs.36,000/- per annum as well as the age of the deceased in between 20-25 years. The dependants on the deceased are three in number. So, after deducting 1/3rd from out of annual income towards personal living expenses of the deceased and after applying the appropriate multiplier ‘17’ to the age group of the deceased as per II Schedule to Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, the Tribunal arrived the loss of dependency at Rs.4,08,000/- (Rs.24,000/- (Rs.36,000/- - Rs.12,000/-) x multiplier ‘17’). In addition to that, the Tribunal granted Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses of the deceased. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that since the claim of the petitioners is Rs.4,00,000/-, the petitioners are entitled to the said amount towards compensation. In addition to that, the Tribunal granted Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses of the deceased. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that since the claim of the petitioners is Rs.4,00,000/-, the petitioners are entitled to the said amount towards compensation. The Tribunal by giving cogent reasons awarded the said compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. There is no legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding given by the Tribunal. 14. It is the case of the petitioner that the 1st respondent is owner and the 2nd respondent is insurer of the offending lorry under Ex.B.1-policy and the policy was also in force as on the date of the accident. The same is not disputed by the respondents. Therefore, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. 15. Insofar as awarding of interest @ 7.5% p.a. is concerned, this Court finds merit in the submission of the learned standing counsel for the appellant/Insurance company that the Tribunal awarded exorbitant rate of interest, since the accident occurred in the year 2010, therefore, the same has to be reduced from 7.5% p.a. to 6% p.a. 16. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of and the decree and order dated 30.07.2011 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Guntur, in M.V.O.P.No.322 of 2010 is modified by reducing the rate of interest from 7.5% p.a. to 6% p.a. The order of the Tribunal in all other respects shall remain intact. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeals shall stand closed.