THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1154 of 2003 Date: 12.08.2010 Between: K. Anitha and others. … Appellants and Mohd. Jaweed and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1154 of 2003 ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard learned counsel for the appellants-claimants as well as the learned Standing Counsel for 2nd respondent-The New India Assurance Company Limited. 2. Aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 03.09.2002, in O.P.No.1398 of 1999, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for brevity “the Tribunal”), awarding a sum of Rs.1,67,500/- as against the claim of Rs.4,50,000/- for the death of K.Anjaneyulu, who died in a motor accident that occurred on 28.12.1998, due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of the lorry, bearing registration No.AHT 9608, the present civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the claimants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased K.Anjaneyulu. 3. The appellants herein are the claimants, first respondent is the owner of the offending lorry, against whom the claim was dismissed for default as per the Court order, dated 28.1.2010, and the second respondent is its insurer-New India Assurance Company Limited. 4. This is a case of death. Wife, children and mother of the deceased are the claimants. The other particulars regarding the method and the manner in which the accident had occurred and the aspect of negligence are not referred to since not in dispute. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, awarded a sum of Rs.1,67,500/- towards compensation under various heads. Hence the present appeal by the claimants. 5. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is proper and justified. 6. The case of the claimants was that as on the date of accident, the deceased was running a mechanic shed and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Ex.A-7 photographs along with corresponding negatives marked by the claimants showing the deceased photographed in front of the mechanic shed were not believed by the Tribunal on the ground of suspicious circumstances. In other words, there was a doubt cropped up in the mind of the Tribunal as regards the genuineness of the deceased running a mechanic shed. The Tribunal also pointed out that there are other documents, like R.C. licence or any other official document stood in the name of the deceased, which can prove in a better way that the deceased was involved in the activity of running a mechanic shed. In the absence of such documentary evidence, as rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, filing of mere photographs showing the deceased in front of the mechanic shed was held to be unsatisfactory. When the proof of occupation of the deceased itself was discarded, the other aspects relating to the estimation of income of the deceased and the eventual arrival of the amount of compensation cannot be interfered with, inasmuch as such notional fixation of the income appears to be just and reasonable. 7. For the foregoing, I do not find any illegality or irrationality in the order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 12.08.2010. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1154 of 2003 12.08.2010 (Msr)