JUDGMENT : Heard Sri M.Venkata Ramana Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Smt. A.Jayanthi, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company. 2. This appeal directed by the appellants/claimants challenging the Order and Decree dated 09.09.2010 passed in M.V.O.P.No.147 of 2008 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Chittoor at Tirupati (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 claimants filed petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity ‘the Act’) claiming compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- towards compensation for the death of one R.Bathi Reddy (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) in a motor accident occurred on 18.10.2007 at about 5.30 AM. 5. The case of the claimants is that the deceased was aged 52 years and eking out his livelihood by working as a bullock-cart owner-cum-driver; on 18.10.2007 at about 5.30 AM the deceased was going on a bullock-cart and reached the place of accident; the respondent No.1/driver of the bus bearing registration No.AP03 W 7007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle) in a rash and negligent manner dashed the bullock-cart on its back; as a result, the deceased sustained injuries on his head; he was shifted to SVRR Government Hospital, Tirupati and later, to SVIMS Hospital, Tirupati; he died on 19.10.2007 at about 5.00 AM; his cart was badly damaged and bull also died later; police registered a case in Crime No.105 of 2007 for the offence punishable under Sections 337 and 279 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’); after investigation, they laid police report (charge sheet) for the offence punishable under Section 304-A and 279 of IPC against the respondent No.1 vide Calendar Case No.11 of 2008; the claimants are wife, sons and daughter of the deceased, respectively; the respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. 6. The respondent No.1 remained ex parte. 7. The respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed counter contending that the accident was occurred due to negligence of the deceased; the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive. 8. The learned Tribunal, basing on the rival contentions, framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the deceased R.Bathi Reddy, died in the bus accident due to rash and negligent driving of the Bharathi Bus bearing No.AP03 W 7007 by its driver on 18.10.2007? 2. 8. The learned Tribunal, basing on the rival contentions, framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the deceased R.Bathi Reddy, died in the bus accident due to rash and negligent driving of the Bharathi Bus bearing No.AP03 W 7007 by its driver on 18.10.2007? 2. What was the age and income of the deceased on the date of his death? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 4. To what relief? 9. During enquiry, on behalf of claimants, the 1st claimant was examined as P.W.1 and got examined the eye-witness to the accident as P.W.2, besides exhibited four documents as Ex.A1 to Ex.A6. No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by either of the respondents. 10. Learned Tribunal considering the evidence, on issue No.1 held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the respondent No.1. This finding of the learned Tribunal was not challenged either by the respondent No.1/driver of the offending vehicle or the respondent No.2/Insurance Company. In respect of issue No.2, the learned Tribunal considering the evidence, fixed the age of the deceased as ‘52 years’ and arrived the income notionally at Rs.100/- per day. Accordingly, assessed the quantum of compensation at Rs.3,60,000/- by awarding interest at 6% per annum. 11. The claimants challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal on the ground that it is not a just compensation and that, the Tribunal failed to award proper amount as per law. 12. The learned counsel for the claimants would submit that the deceased was working as a bullock-cart driver and earning Rs.500/- per day, but the learned Tribunal notionally fixed the income at Rs.100/- per day which is on a lower side. 13. Smt. A.Jayanthi, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal considering the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and as there is no other material, notionally fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.100/- per day and there are no grounds to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 14. In the light of above rival contentions, the points that would arise for consideration in this appeal are as under: 1. 14. In the light of above rival contentions, the points that would arise for consideration in this appeal are as under: 1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Chittoor at Tirupati, in M.V.O.P.No.147 of 2008 vide Order and Decree dated 09.10.2010 is not a just compensation, and warrants interference of this Court? 2. To what relief? POINT NO.1: 15. The claimants, in order to prove the income of the deceased at the time of accident, examined the 1st claimant i.e., wife of the deceased as P.W.1 and also examined another witness viz., P.Sampath Kumar as P.W.2. The learned Tribunal considered the evidence of P.W.1 as well as P.W.2 with regard to the quantum of income earned by the deceased prior to the accident which was occurred in the year 2007. 16. The Tribunal found that there is inconsistency in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 with regard to the earnings of the deceased as a bullock-cart driver and therefore, disbelieved the case of claimants that the deceased was earning Rs.500/- per day. In that view of the matter, the learned Tribunal notionally considered the income of the deceased and arrived the same at Rs.100/- per day. 17. As rightly pointed out by the learned Tribunal, P.W.1 deposed that the deceased was earning Rs.500/- per day on bullock-cart; whereas, the other witness i.e., P.W.2 deposed that the deceased was earning Rs.700/- to Rs.800/- per day. So, there is no consistency in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 with regard to quantum of earnings of the deceased as owner-cum-driver of bullock-cart. 18. Admittedly, the accident was occurred in the year 2007; the occupation of the deceased was considered as coolie doing labour work in rural area. Therefore, fixing the income of deceased at the rate of Rs.100/- per day can be sustained. In those circumstances, there are no grounds to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal regarding the income fixed by the Tribunal notionally at Rs.100/- per day. Therefore, the income of the deceased is arrived at Rs.3,000/- per month. 19. In view of the Judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and anothers Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others, 2009 ACJ 1298 and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 cases, ‘1/4th’ of the income of the deceased shall be deducted towards personal expenses. 19. In view of the Judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and anothers Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others, 2009 ACJ 1298 and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 cases, ‘1/4th’ of the income of the deceased shall be deducted towards personal expenses. It comes to Rs.2,250/- [i.e., (Rs.3,000/- x 1/4th = Rs.750/-) (Rs.3,000/- (-) Rs.750/-)] and annual income of the deceased is Rs.27,000/-. 20. Coming to the age of the deceased, the learned Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased at ‘52 years’ and there is no dispute with regard to the said fact. Therefore, he would come under the age group of ‘51-55 years’ and the multiplier applicable is ‘11’ as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma case. Therefore, the loss of dependency is Rs.2,97,000/- (i.e., Rs.27,000/- x 11). 21. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi case, the claimants are entitled to loss of future income at the rate of 1/4th i.e., 25% on the established income of the deceased as per the income fixed by the learned Tribunal which arrives to Rs.74,250/-(Rs.2,97,000/- x 25%). 22. Further, as per the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi case, the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards ‘Funeral Expenses’; Rs.15,000/-towards ‘Loss of Estate’ and Rs.40,000/- to the 1st claimant towards spousal consortium. 23. The learned Tribunal awarded as sum of Rs.17,000/- and Rs.1,000/- towards medical expenditure and transport to hospital, respectively and they shall remain intact. 24. Therefore, the just compensation entitled by the claimants is Rs.4,59,250/- (Rupees four lakhs fifty nine thousand two hundred and fifty only) under Section 166 of the Act under the following heads discussed supra, instead of Rs.3,60,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal: Sl. No. Description of the head Amount awarded in Rs. 1. Loss of dependency 2,97,000-00 2. Loss of future prospects 74,250-00 3. Loss of Consortium 40,000-00 4. Loss of Estate 15,000-00 5. Funeral Expenses 15,000-00 6. Medical Bills 17,000-00 7. Transport to Hospital 1,000-00 TOTAL 4,59,250-00 25. The claimants are entitled to interest on the above amount as per Section 171 of the Act. The learned Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the compensation. The accident was occurred in the year 2007. Loss of Estate 15,000-00 5. Funeral Expenses 15,000-00 6. Medical Bills 17,000-00 7. Transport to Hospital 1,000-00 TOTAL 4,59,250-00 25. The claimants are entitled to interest on the above amount as per Section 171 of the Act. The learned Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the compensation. The accident was occurred in the year 2007. Therefore, considering the prevailing rate of interest at 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) this Court is of the opinion that the claimants are entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization instead of 6% per annum as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 26. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appeal is liable to be ‘partly allowed’ holding that the claimants are entitled to Rs.4,59,250/- towards just compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization by modifying the Order and Decree passed by the learned Tribunal in M.V.O.P. No.147 of 2008 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Chittoor at Tirupati. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered. POINT NO.2: 27. In the light of finding on point No.1, the appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.2685 of 2012 is liable to be ‘Partly Allowed’. 28. IN THE RESULT, the Appeal is ‘Partly Allowed’ by modifying the Order and Decree dated 09.09.2010 passed in M.V.O.P.No.147 of 2008 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Chittoor at Tirupati, holding that the appellants/claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.4,59,250/- (Rupees four lakhs fifty nine thousand two hundred and fifty only) with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, instead of Rs.3,60,000/- with interest at 6% per annum, as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 29. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within eight (08) weeks from the date of the judgment, and in the event of already deposited by the insurer, the said amount has to be excluded, and the balance amount shall be deposited within above said period from the date of Judgment. 30. 29. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within eight (08) weeks from the date of the judgment, and in the event of already deposited by the insurer, the said amount has to be excluded, and the balance amount shall be deposited within above said period from the date of Judgment. 30. On such deposit, the appellant No.1/claimant No.1 being the wife of the deceased is entitled to an amount of Rs.1,59,250/- and she is permitted to withdraw the said amount along with accrued interest thereon. 31. The appellant Nos.2 to 4/claimant Nos.2 to 4 being the sons and daughter of the deceased, they are entitled to an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each and they are permitted to withdraw their respective amounts along with accrued interest thereon. 32. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.