JUDGMENT: The appellant is 2nd respondent-Insurance company and the respondents are claimants and 1st respondent in M.V.O.P.No.268 of 2008 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional 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 petition. 3. The claimants filed the petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for the death of Vallabhapuram Samadhanam, who is husband of 1st claimant, father of claimant Nos.2 & 3 and son of 4th claimant, in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 19.08.2007. 4. The brief averments in the petition filed by the claimants are as follows: On 19.08.2007 the deceased hired an auto bearing registration No.AP 07X 929 at Tenali and purchased fertilizers and pesticides and got loaded the same into the said auto for transportation to his village and started at Tenali and when the auto reached near Autonagar bridge, Tenali, a lorry came in opposite direction. Then, the driver of the auto became uncontrolled and applied sudden brakes. As a result of that, the auto turned turtle and the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. The Police, Tenali Rural P.S. registered a case in Crime No.93 of 2007 for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC and after completion of investigation, filed a charge sheet against the driver of the offending auto. The 1st respondent being owner and the 2nd respondent being insurer of the offending auto are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. 5. The 1st respondent was set ex parte. 6. The 2nd respondent filed a written statement by denying the manner of accident, age, income and occupation of the deceased. It is pleaded that the driver of the auto was not having effective driving licence by the date of accident and the claim made by the claimants is excessive. 7. Based on the above pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal: 1) Whether the deceased V.Samadhanam is died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of auto No.AP 07X 929? 7. Based on the above pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal: 1) Whether the deceased V.Samadhanam is died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of auto No.AP 07X 929? 2) Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation, if so, what amount and which of the respondents? 3) To what relief? 8. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.3 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance company, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 to B.5 were marked. 9. At the culmination of the enquiry, on considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending auto and accordingly, allowed the claim petition granting a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards compensation to the claimants with proportionate costs and interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment against the respondents. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the 2nd respondent/Insurance company has preferred the present appeal. 10. Heard learned counsels for both parties and perused the record. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance company would contend that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in the offending auto, the amount awarded towards compensation is exorbitant, and the interest awarded @ 8% p.a. is excessive. 12. Now, the point for determination is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? 13. POINT: The claim is made under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act where under the claimants need not prove the rash and negligent driving. It is sufficient to prove that the vehicle was involved in the accident. It is the case of the claimants that due to negligent driving of the driver of the offending auto, the auto turned turtle resulting in the instantaneous death of the deceased. In order to establish their case, the claimants got examined the 1st claimant, who is wife of the deceased, as P.W.1. P.W.1 in her evidence reiterated the contents of the petition with regard to manner of accident. There is nothing in the cross-examination of P.W.1 to discredit her evidence as to manner of accident and the suggestions put to her were denied. P.W.1 in her evidence reiterated the contents of the petition with regard to manner of accident. There is nothing in the cross-examination of P.W.1 to discredit her evidence as to manner of accident and the suggestions put to her were denied. As seen from Ex.B.4-certified copy of charge sheet, which was marked through R.W.1, the driver of the offending auto was charged under Section 181 of the M. V. Act apart from Sections 337 and 304-A of IPC. Though R.W.1 was examined on behalf of the respondents, his evidence cannot be accepted, as he is not an eye witness to the accident. The claimants also relied upon Ex.A.1-certified copy of first information report. Ex.A.1 goes to show that the accident occurred on 19.08.2007 and on a complaint of one Duru Mariyadas, who is an eye witness to the accident and who was travelling along with the deceased in the offending auto, the police registered a case against the driver of the offending auto for the offences under Sections 337 and 304-A of IPC. The evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.A.1 and B.4, it is clearly proved that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the driver of the offending auto resulting in the instantaneous death of the deceased. On considering the material on record, the Tribunal also came to the same conclusion. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal. 14. Coming to the compensation, on appreciation of the entire material on record, the Tribunal arrived the annual income of the deceased at Rs.25,000/-. In fact, there is no positive evidence to show that the deceased used to earn an amount of Rs.25,000/- p.a. The accident occurred in the year 2007. The claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act. Therefore, on considering the entire material on record, it is desirable to arrive that the annual income of the deceased was Rs.12,000/-. The dependants on the deceased are four in number. So, 1/4th from out of the annual income has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. If it is so deducted, the annual contribution to the family members of the deceased is arrived at Rs.9,000/- (Rs.12,000/- - Rs.3,000/-). The deceased was aged in between 35 years to 40 years and the relevant multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is ‘15’. If it is so deducted, the annual contribution to the family members of the deceased is arrived at Rs.9,000/- (Rs.12,000/- - Rs.3,000/-). The deceased was aged in between 35 years to 40 years and the relevant multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is ‘15’. So, the loss of dependency is arrived at Rs.1,35,000/- (Rs.9,000/- x multiplier ‘15’). Since the claim petition is filed under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, an amount of Rs.2,000/- is granted towards funeral expenses of the deceased, Rs.5,000/- is granted towards loss of consortium to the 1st petitioner and Rs.2,500/- is granted towards loss of estate. In all, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,44,500/-. 15. It is not in dispute that the 1st respondent is the owner of the offending auto and he insured the offending auto with the 2nd respondent/Insurance company under Ex.B.1-copy of policy and the policy was also in force as on the date of the accident. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance company would submit that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the offending auto, therefore, the Insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal, by giving cogent reasons, held in its order that the deceased was not a gratuitous passenger. The charge sheet filed by the appellant was marked as Ex.B.4. As per Ex.B.4, the deceased was travelling in the offending auto as a owner of goods from Tenali market to go to his village. A perusal of Ex.A.1-first information report reveals that the deceased engaged the offending auto for transportation of manure bags from Tenali market and boarded the auto as a owner of the goods. Therefore, the plea taken by the counsel for the appellant that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger cannot be accepted. 17. Another objection taken by the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance company is that the driver of the offending auto did not possess driving licence to drive the auto. The Tribunal held in its order that the appellant/Insurance company failed to examine the employee of the Transport Department to prove that the driver of the offending auto had not possessed any driving licence at the time of accident. The Insurance company also failed to examine the Investigating Officer to prove the contents of the charge sheet. The Tribunal held in its order that the appellant/Insurance company failed to examine the employee of the Transport Department to prove that the driver of the offending auto had not possessed any driving licence at the time of accident. The Insurance company also failed to examine the Investigating Officer to prove the contents of the charge sheet. By giving cogent reasons, the Tribunal held in its order that there are no violations in the policy and the respondents are liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. Therefore, there is no legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding given by the Tribunal. 18. Insofar as awarding of interest @ 8% p.a. is concerned, this Court finds merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance company that the Tribunal awarded exorbitant rate of interest, since the accident occurred in the year 2007 and therefore, the same has to be reduced from 8% p.a. to 7.5% p.a. 19. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The order and decree dated 07.10.2009 passed by the Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.268 of 2008 is modified by reducing the compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.1,44,500/- and also by reducing the rate of interest from 8% p.a. awarded by the Tribunal to 7.5% p.a. The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,44,500/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount with costs and interest before the Tribunal within two months from the date of this judgment. On such deposit, the 1st claimant is entitled to withdraw Rs.50,000/- with total costs and interest on Rs.1,44,500/-, claimant Nos.2 & 3 are entitled to withdraw Rs.30,000/- each, and the 4th claimant is entitled to withdraw Rs.34,500/-. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.