JUDGMENT S.P. Srivastava, J.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Insurer-appellant.
2. Mr. Ram Singh, learned Counsel for the claimant-respondent caveators, who has appeared at this stage has also been heard.
3. The appellant-Insurance Company feels aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, determining an amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- as just compensation, to which the dependents of the deceased Kumari Maina aged about 8 years were found entitled to on account of her untimely death in an accident involving the offending motor vehicle, which was insured by the present insurer-appellant covering the risk.
4. The only submission urged and pressed by the learned Counsel for the appellant in support of this appeal is that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive.
5. It may be noticed that the appellant had obtained the permission envisaged under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
6. We have heard the learned Counsel on the aforesaid question.
7. In the present case the deceased was aged about 8 years at the time of the accident. The Tribunal has calculated the amount of compensation on the basis of notional income of the deceased, which was taken to be Rs. 15,000/- per annum. However, it may be noticed that the main consideration, which had weighed with the Tribunal in determining the amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- as just compensation was the provision contained in the Second Schedule to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, which provides utilization of the multiplier of 15 for the persons upto 15 years of age while determining the amount of compensation at a figure of Rs. 2,25,000/- on the basis of the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum. The Tribunal has drawn ample support for his view from the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Allahabad v. Raj Bahadur and Anr. reported in 2002 (3) TAC 409 (All). It may be usefully noticed that the provisions contained in the Second Schedule to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act can be utilized as an appropriate guideline for determining the amount of compensation.
8. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances brought on record we are not inclined to take a departure from the view expressed in the decision of the aforesaid Division Bench so far as the use of the Second Schedule, referred to hereinabove, as a guideline for determining the amount of compensation in the appropriate cases is concerned.
9. There is no merit in the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant noticed hereinabove, which is not acceptable. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstance as established on record, the amount of compensation awarded does not appear to be unjust.
10. It has been next contended that in any view of the matter the Tribunal has erred in awarding an amount of simple interest at the rate of 10% on the amount of compensation awarded. The submission is that the interest awarded is highly excessive and deserves to be decreased.
11. We have heard the learned Counsel for the claimants-respondents on this question.
12. Taking into consideration the reduction of rate of interest in view of the directions of the Reserve Bank of India and the Scheduled Banks we are of the view that the appropriate rate of interest should have been 8% per annum in place of 10% per annum.
13. In the aforesaid circumstances the rate of interest as provided in the impugned award shall stand reduced to 8% per annum simple interest. The impugned award shall stand modified accordingly. In other aspect the impugned award shall remain intact.
14. As prayed, the amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited in this Court by the insurer-appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is remitted to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal concerned so that it may be disbursed to the claimants.