JUDGMENT : Heard Sri K. Maheswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant/respondent No.3/Insurance Company. None appeared for the respondents. 2. This appeal directed by the appellant/respondent No.3/Insurance Company challenging the Order and Decree dated 12.08.2011 passed in M.V.O.P.No.880 of 2006 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada (hereinafter referred to ‘Tribunal’). 3. Parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the proceedings before the learned Tribunal, for the sake of convenience. 4. The claimant filed the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity ‘the Act’) claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the death of one Jangala Gopala Krishna @ Gopi (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 28.02.2006 at about 9.00 PM. 5. The case of the claimant is that on 28.02.2006 at about 9.00 PM the respondent No.2/driver of the lorry bearing registration No.AP16 TU 2546 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’) drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased at Nidamanuru; as a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot; the deceased was aged 49 years, working as supplier in a hotel at Nidamanuru and earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month on the date of accident. 6. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte. 7. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company filed counter conceding that the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent No.3/Insurance Company; the respondent No.2/driver of the offending vehicle has no valid driving license to drive the said vehicle; the amount of compensation claimed by the claimant is highly excessive and the claimant made an attempt to take undue advantage of the accident if any caused. 8. The learned Tribunal, basing on the rival contentions, framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the deceased J.Gopala Krishna @ Gopi died in a motor vehicle accident on 28.02.2006 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP16 TU 2546? 2. If so, what was the correct age and income of the deceased by the date of the accident? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation as prayed for? If so, from whom and which amount? 4. To what relief? 9. 2. If so, what was the correct age and income of the deceased by the date of the accident? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation as prayed for? If so, from whom and which amount? 4. To what relief? 9. During enquiry, on behalf of claimant, the claimant was examined herself as P.W.1 and got exhibited twelve (12) documents as Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 besides examining two (02) witnesses as P.W.2 and P.W.3, who are eye-witness to the occurrence of accident and relative of the deceased, respectively. On behalf of respondents, none were examined, but got exhibited copy of Insurance Policy as Ex.B1. 10. The learned Tribunal, considering the evidence on issue No.1 held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.2/driver of the offending vehicle, resulted in the death of the deceased. 11. The Tribunal, on issue No.2 held that there is no documentary evidence to prove the annual income of the deceased as on the date of death and notionally assessed the annual income as Rs.36,000/- per annum and held that the claimant is entitled to Rs.2,00,000/- towards just and reasonable compensation. The Tribunal further held that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation amount to the claimant with interest at the rate of 8% per annum. 12. The contention of the respondent No.3/Insurance Company is that the learned Tribunal considered the application under Section 163-A of the Act instead of Section 166 of the Act and considered the income of the deceased as Rs.36,000/- per annum, erroneously instead of Rs.15,000/- per annum as per Second Schedule and therefore, awarded excessive amount towards compensation. 13. The other contention of the respondent No.3/Insurance Company is that the interest awarded at the rate of 8% per annum is on higher side. 14. Sri Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance Company fairly conceded that as per the legal position in an application filed under Section 163-A of the Act, the annual income limit is Rs.40,000/- as per the Second Schedule. 15. In case on hand, admittedly, the Tribunal though, considered the application under Section 163-A of the Act fixed the income notionally at Rs.36,000/- per annum only i.e., below the limit prescribed by the Second Schedule. 15. In case on hand, admittedly, the Tribunal though, considered the application under Section 163-A of the Act fixed the income notionally at Rs.36,000/- per annum only i.e., below the limit prescribed by the Second Schedule. The learned Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased notionally basing on the evidence of the claimant placed before the learned Tribunal. In that view of the matter, the contention of the respondent No.3/Insurance Company that the Tribunal ought to have restricted the income of the deceased to Rs.15,000/- is not valid either on facts or in law. 16. When coming to the quantum of interest, the learned Tribunal awarded the interest at 8% per annum on the compensation amount i.e., Rs.2,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards just compensation for the death of the deceased in the impugned motor vehicle accident. Admittedly, the accident was occurred in the year 2006. In that view of the matter, considering the prevailing rate of interest at the material point in time and in view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Mannat Johal, 2019 ACJ 1849 (SC), the rate of interest be awarded at 7.5% per annum instead of 8% per annum on the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered. POINT NO.2: 17. In the light of finding on point No.1, the appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.3910 of 2012 is liable to be ‘Partly Allowed’. 18. IN THE RESULT, the Appeal is ‘Partly Allowed’ modifying the Order and Decree dated 12.08.2011 passed in M.V.O.P.No.880 of 2006 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada, with respect to the rate of interest fixed by the learned Tribunal on the compensation amount at 8% per annum to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Rest of the order and decree shall remain intact. 19. The appellant/respondent No.3/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest at 7.5% from the date of the petition till the date of deposit, within eight (08) weeks from the date of the judgment. 20. On such deposit, the respondent No.1/claimant is entitled to withdraw the amount along with accrued interest thereon as ordered by the learned Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.