JUDGMENT : Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, J. Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 08.08.2016 (for short ‘the impugned order’) passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal – cum – I Additional District Judge, Mahaboobnagar (hereinafter shall be referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in O.P.No.528 of 2013, the Appellant/Insurance Company preferred the present Appeal. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred as per their status before the Tribunal. I. BRIEF FACTS 3. The brief facts of the case, as borne out from the record, are as under: a) The petitioners/claimants, who are the wife and children of Pathlavath Lokya @ Rukya @ Lukya (hereinafter shall be referred to as ‘the deceased’), filed a claim petition under Section 166-C of the Motor Vehicle Act, seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- against the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 for the death of the deceased in a road traffic accident. It was pleaded that on 13.06.2013 the deceased, who was working as a Supervisor in Vijaya Textles, Rajapur, while proceeding to his work-place from his house along with another worker on a motorcycle bearing registration No. AP 09 CH 0206 on NH-44 road and when they reached Rangareddyguda Villagen near Devula Thanda Cross Roads, a Volvo Bus bearing registration No.AP 28 TD 4040 coming from Hyderabad side towards Kurnool dashed the motorcycle of the deceased from behind due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. As a result, the deceased and the pillion rider fell on the road and the deceased died on the spot. The pillion rider also succumbed to injuries at Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad while undergoing treatment. b) The deceased was alleged to have been working as Supervisor in Vijaya Textiles, Rajapur earning Rs.8,000/- per month apart from a daily batta of Rs.200/-. c) The respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending vehicle, which was insured with respondent No.2 and the insurance policy issued by respondent No.2 was valid and in force as on the date of the accident. 4. The respondent No.1 remained exparte and whereas the respondent No.2 filed a counter in response to the above averments, inter alia denying the averments and mainly contended that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. 4. The respondent No.1 remained exparte and whereas the respondent No.2 filed a counter in response to the above averments, inter alia denying the averments and mainly contended that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. It was further contended that the driver of the bus was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident and therefore, the respondent No.2 is not liable to indemnify the alleged loss if any said to have been incurred by the respondent No.1. It was further contended that the compensation as claimed by the claimants is excessive and arbitrary. Thus, the respondent No.2 prayed to dismiss the claim petition. II. EVIDENCE ADDUCED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL 5. In order to establish the claim before the learned Tribunal, the petitioners examined PWs 1 and 2 and Exs.P1 to P9 were marked on their behalf. On the other hand, no oral evidence was adduced on behalf of respondent No.2, however, copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1. III. FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL: 6. The learned Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, passed the impugned order awarding Rs.15,60,760/- as compensation to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.2 preferred the present Appeal. 7. Heard Sri V. Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri V. Atchuta Ram, learned counsel for the claimants and perused the material available on record including the grounds of Appeal. IV. POINT FOR DETERMINATION 8. The point that arises for determination is: Whether there are any tenable grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal? V. ANALYSIS 9. There is no dispute with regard to the occurrence of the accident, as the learned Tribunal while relying on the oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2 coupled with the documentary evidence under Exs.A1 to A6 i.e., FIR, crime details form, inquest report, PME report, MVI report and charge sheet respectively, arrived to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. 10. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant/respondent No.2 contended that despite the Tribunal recording a finding that the claimants have not filed any proof to establish that the deceased was working as a supervisor in Vijaya Textiles in Rajapur Village and drawing a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month and a daily batta of Rs.200/, the learned Tribunal erred in considering the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month basing on the notification issued under Minimum Wages Act. It was further contended that the claimants failed to prove not only the income of the deceased but also the occupation of the deceased with the help of any oral and documentary evidence. 11. In order to establish their case, the claimants relied upon the oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2. PW1 is the wife of the deceased and PW2 is the eyewitness to the incident. Admittedly, except the testimony of PW1, the claimants did not examine any independent witness to prove the earnings of the deceased. Though the claimants have asserted that the deceased used to work as a supervisor in Vijaya Textiles in Rajapur Village and draw a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month and a daily batta of Rs.200/-, no documentary evidence was placed on record to establish the said claim. However, the learned counsel for the claimants placed reliance upon the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Smt. Neeta v. The Divisional Manager, MSRTC, Kolhapur , 2015 (1) TAC 340 (SC) , wherein it was held that in the absence of documentary proof of income, the notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act can be taken as a reasonable basis for fixing the income of the deceased. Apart from that the claimants also relied upon Ex.A7 i.e., certified copy of G.O.Ms. No.50 (Labour, Employment, Training and Factories Lab.II) dated 22.06.2010, wherein the minimum wage was fixed at Rs.8,000/- per month. It is not the case of the appellant/insurance company that the learned Tribunal fixed the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- without any basis. The learned Tribunal not only relied upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court but also based its finding on the government order at the relevant point of time while fixing the monthly income of the deceased. Thus, the above contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company are unsustainable. 12. The learned Tribunal not only relied upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court but also based its finding on the government order at the relevant point of time while fixing the monthly income of the deceased. Thus, the above contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company are unsustainable. 12. The other contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company is that the learned Tribunal erred in considering the future prospects of the deceased by adding 30% of the above income in the absence of any proof or evidence with regard to income of the deceased. In the instant case, the learned Tribunal fixed the notional income of the deceased based on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court and the applicable Government order. It is now well settled law that future prospects have to be considered even in cases, where income is assessed on a notional basis. Therefore, addition of 30% towards future prospects cannot be found fault with. 13. The learned Tribunal while fixing the annual income of the deceased at Rs.96,000/- per annum (Rs.8,000/- x 12 months) and deducting 1/5 th from the annual income towards personal expenses of the deceased, arrived at annual contribution to the family at and thereby arrived to Rs.76,800/- (Rs.96,000/- - Rs.19,200/-). By placing reliance on the decision of Honourable Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transportation Corporation , (2009) 6 SCC 121 applied the suitable multiplier of ‘14’, as the deceased was aged between 41 and 45 years. After multiplying the annual income of the deceased with relevant multiplier, the loss of dependency was correctly computed at Rs.10,75,200/- (Rs.76,800/- x 14). The learned Tribunal while placing reliance on the decisions in B. China Seshamma and others v. APSRTC rep. by its Regional Manager , 2014 (1) An. W.R. 511 (D.B.) (A.P.) and Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others , (2013) 9 SCC 54 considered 30% towards future prospects. Thus, the claimants were awarded Rs.3,22,560/- (Rs.10,75,200/- x 30%) towards future prospects. Apart from that the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.88,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, in all, the claimants were awarded an amount of Rs.15,60,760/- as compensation. Thus, the claimants were awarded Rs.3,22,560/- (Rs.10,75,200/- x 30%) towards future prospects. Apart from that the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.88,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, in all, the claimants were awarded an amount of Rs.15,60,760/- as compensation. Though the claimants had claimed compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-, the learned Tribunal while relying on the decisions in Apparaju Sobha Rani v. Midyam Rama Rao and another , 2014 (2) An. W.R. 179 (A.P) , Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and others , 2003 (1) An. W.R. 135 (SC) and New India Assurance Company Limited, Chittoor v. Palagiri Hasan and others , 2005 (1) ALT 634 , rightly awarded the compensation exceeding the claim, permissible in law. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company further contended that the rate of interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal at 9% per annum is excessive and thus, prayed to reduce the same. Admittedly, the learned Tribunal had awarded interest of 9% per annum on the compensation awarded. 15. It is to be noted that Section 171 of the Motor Vehicle Act does not prescribe any fixed rate of interest. The rate of interest awarded by the courts in motor accident claims depends upon varying based on the facts and circumstances of each case and discretion vests with the Tribunal or the Appellate Court. No principle could be deduced nor can any rate of interest be fixed to have a general application in motor accident claim cases having regard to the nature of provision under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicle Act conferring discretion upon the Tribunal in such manner. In Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Niru @ Niharika and others , 2025 INSC 822 the Honourable Apex Court observed as under: “8. Further contention taken is the higher rate of interest of 9%, in challenge of which several precedents were placed before us. From the decisions perused what emanates is that in the 1980’s, Courts were awarding 12% interest which stood reduced to 9% in the 1990’s. With the advent of the 21st century and the economic recession world over, the interest rates fell considerably. But even now the rates offered by National Banks for long term deposits are 7% or more.” 16. From the decisions perused what emanates is that in the 1980’s, Courts were awarding 12% interest which stood reduced to 9% in the 1990’s. With the advent of the 21st century and the economic recession world over, the interest rates fell considerably. But even now the rates offered by National Banks for long term deposits are 7% or more.” 16. There is no hard and fast rule in claim petitions filed under the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act that specific rate of interest has to be awarded while granting compensation. In fact, it is the discretion of the Tribunal or the Appellate Court to award the rate of interest depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. In M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited v. Syed Khadar , TSHC: MACMA No.742 of 2021 decided on 04.07.2025 this Court observed that this Court has been consistently granting interest @ 7.5% per annum on the compensation that is awarded in such cases. Even the Honourable Apex Court in Rajesh’s case (supra) , awarded rate of interest at Rs.7.5% per annum. In Bandavath Mangla and another v. Bandavath Suresh and others , 2023 SCC Online TS 1095 , National Insurance Company Limited v. M. Venkateshwarlu and others , 2023 SCC Online TS 1170 , United Insurance Company Limited v. Bollam Lingaiah , 2024 SCC Online TS 915 , National Insurance Company Limited v. Jagadish Prajapathi , 2024 SCC Online TS 2050 this Court has consistently awarded rate of interest @ 7.5% per annum. Thus, it is evident that this Court has been consistently granting interest at 7.5% per annum on the compensation that is awarded. 17. In view of the prevailing bank rates and the consistent judicial trend principle laid down in the aforesaid decisions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the rate of interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal at 9% per annum warrants reduction. 18. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that except to the extent of reduction in rate of interest on the compensation, the appellant/insurance Company failed to establish grounds warranting interference with the compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal. VI. RESULT 19. 18. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that except to the extent of reduction in rate of interest on the compensation, the appellant/insurance Company failed to establish grounds warranting interference with the compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal. VI. RESULT 19. In the result, the Appeal is allowed in part only to the extent of reducing the rate of interest on the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal from 9% per annum to 7.5% per annum. The remaining part of the impugned Award shall stand confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.