JUDGMENT : B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J. 1. Challenging the judgment dated 07.05.2012 passed in M.V.O.P.No. 584/2010 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-XIII Addl.District Judge, Vijayawada, the appellant/Insurance Company Limited, filed the appeal. 2. The respondents/claimants filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal U/s.163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of Pasumarthi Sreeramulu, alleging that the deceased used to work as coolie and earning Rs.6,000/- per month; on 03.02.2010 at about 05.30 p.m. when the deceased Sreeramulu was proceeding in auto No. AP 20W 6706 and on the way when the said auto reached near Vedadri village, another auto No. AP 16 TY 2952 driven by 1st respondent came in opposite direction and hit the auto, in which the deceased was proceeding; and thereby the said auto turned turtle and in the said accident, deceased sustained injuries and died at spot; therefore, the claimants filed the claim petition for compensation. 3. Before the learned Tribunal, the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed counter, while traversing the material averments with regard to manner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle, age and avocation of the deceased, liability to pay compensation, and contended that the driver of auto in which the deceased travelled had no driving licence and not having necessary skill to drive the auto and therefore, the accident occurred; and that the 1st respondent is also not having valid driving licence and badge number and therefore, it is not liable to pay compensation. 4. The respondent No. 1 remained ex-parte. 5. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the deceased P. Sreeramulu died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 03.02.2010 at about 17.40 p.m. near Vedadri village due to rash and negligent driving of the driver/owner of auto bearing No. AP 16 TY 2952? 2. What is the correct age and income of deceased by the date of accident? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation as prayed for? If so, from whom and what amount? 4. To what relief? 6. To substantiate their claim, the claimants examined P.W-1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, R.Ws-1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-4 and Exs.X-1 and X-2 were marked. 7. 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation as prayed for? If so, from whom and what amount? 4. To what relief? 6. To substantiate their claim, the claimants examined P.W-1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, R.Ws-1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-4 and Exs.X-1 and X-2 were marked. 7. The claimants filed claim petition U/s.163-A of M.V.Act stating that the deceased is earning Rs.6,000/- per month. As per section 163-A of M.V.Act, the annual income of deceased shall not exceed Rs.40,000/-. But in the present case, the annual income of deceased would be Rs.72,000/-. Therefore, the learned Tribunal held that the claim petition U/s.163-A of M.V.Act is not maintainable, and hence, considered the claim petition U/s.166 of M.V.Act. 8. The learned Tribunal considering the evidence of P.W-1 and Exs.A-1 to A-5, held on issue No. 1 that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent, and further held on issues No. 2 and 3 that the claimants are entitled to claim compensation, awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest @ 7. 5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation. 9. The contention of the appellant/Insurance Company is that the learned Tribunal failed to see that the accident happened due to negligence of auto in which the deceased was travelling, hence, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation; The learned Tribunal ought not have taken income of the deceased at Rs.3,500/- in the absence of any evidence; and the learned Tribunal erred in awarding interest @ 7.5% p.a. 10. The contention of the claimants is that the learned Tribunal basing on the facts and circumstances of the case, awarded just compensation with interest @ 7.5% per annum as per law, and it does not warrant any interference by this Court. 11. In the light of above rival contentions, the points that would arise for consideration in this appeal are as under: 1. Whether the award and decree passed by the learned Tribunal warrants interference of this Court? 2. To what relief? 12. 11. In the light of above rival contentions, the points that would arise for consideration in this appeal are as under: 1. Whether the award and decree passed by the learned Tribunal warrants interference of this Court? 2. To what relief? 12. POINT No. 1: The claimants in order to establish their case, examined the 1st claimant as P.W-1 and filed Ex.A-1 copy of FIR, Ex.A-2 copy of police report (charge sheet), where under, the police after investigation opined that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of auto bearing No. AP 16 TY 2952, and as a result, the deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries and died on the spot. Ex.A-5 copy of post mortem certificate would show that the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage from multiple injuries. 13. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company did not examine the driver of the crime vehicle to speak about the way in which the accident occurred. Therefore, the evidence placed before the learned Tribunal would establish that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto bearing No. AP 16 TY 2952. In that view of the matter, the finding of the learned Tribunal does not warrant interference of this Court. 14. According to the claimants, the deceased used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month by working as coolie in HCL Agro Power Plant. As per evidence on record, the deceased was aged about 49 years as on the date of death. The learned counsel for appellant contended that as per Ex.B-1 ration card, the annual income of deceased is Rs.15,000/-and the income of deceased Rs.6,000/- per month is exaggerated amount. The income mentioned in Ex.B-1 ration card is of the year 2006. The deceased died in the year 2010. Therefore, considering gap of four years and also increase in cost of living as well as wages of labour, it cannot be said that the annual income of deceased would be at Rs.15,000/- per annum only in the year 2010 also. 15. The claimants did not produce evidence to prove the income of deceased in the year 2010. However, considering the cost of living in the year 2010 and nature of occupation of deceased, the income fixed by the learned Tribunal, at Rs.3,500/- per month need not be disturbed. The annual income of the deceased would be Rs.3,500 x 12 = Rs.42,000/-. The claimants did not produce evidence to prove the income of deceased in the year 2010. However, considering the cost of living in the year 2010 and nature of occupation of deceased, the income fixed by the learned Tribunal, at Rs.3,500/- per month need not be disturbed. The annual income of the deceased would be Rs.3,500 x 12 = Rs.42,000/-. There are three dependents depending on the income of deceased. Therefore, 1/3 of the income of deceased should be deducted towards his personal expenses. Thus, the annual income of deceased would be Rs.42,000–14,000 = Rs.28,000/-, 16. The age of deceased was fixed by the learned Tribunal, as 49 years. Hence, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Another vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and Others, 2009 ACJ 1298 the multiplier applicable to arrive loss of dependency for the age group of ‘46 to 50 years’ is ‘13’. Thus, the loss of dependency would be Rs.28,000 x 13 = Rs.3,64,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 17. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 the claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, total comes to Rs.30,000/-. 18. The 1st claimant being wife of deceased is entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. 19. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.3,64,000 + 70,000 = Rs.4,34,000/-. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.4,00,000/- towards just compensation. Therefore, the contention of the appellant/Insurance Company that the learned Tribunal awarded excess compensation without any evidence is not having tenable force. In that view of the matter, the findings of the learned Tribunal does not warrants interference of this Court. 20. The learned Tribunal awarded interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit. This Court do not find any ground to interfere with the rate of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal at 7. 5% p.a., from the date of petition, till the date of realisation, in view of the Hon’ble Apex Court judgement in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Mannat Johal, 2019 ACJ 1849 (SC). 21. This Court do not find any ground to interfere with the rate of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal at 7. 5% p.a., from the date of petition, till the date of realisation, in view of the Hon’ble Apex Court judgement in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Mannat Johal, 2019 ACJ 1849 (SC). 21. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court do not find any grounds to interfere with the award and judgment and decree passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the point is answered. 22. POINT No. 2: To what relief? In the light of finding on point No. 1, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 23. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, by confirming the judgment and decree dated 07.05.2012 passed by the learned Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No. 584/2010 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII Addl.District Judge, Vijayawada. There shall be no order as to costs. 24. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.