of the claimants. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that PW-2 stated in the evidence that the deceased was earning Rs.25/- per day and the learned Tribunal went wrong in considering the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum. PW-2 being illiterate witness might not have correctly stated the income of the deceased while deposing before the learned Tribunal below. It requires to be noticed that the claimants pleaded specifically in the claim petition that the deceased was earning Rs.2,000/- per month and I do not think that the income was exaggerated. Further, the learned Tribunal considered the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum which is the income of the non-earning persons mentioned in the Second Schedule to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned Tribunal in my view did not commit any error in considering the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum. Further, the Tribunal adopted the correct multiplier and computed the compensation in an appropriate manner. The compensation awarded not being excessive, needs no interference in this appeal. However, the interest granted @ 9% per annum by the Tribunal below being on higher side is reduced to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation.
