IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.3057 OF 2003 Between : Smt V.Padma and others. .... APPELLANTS A N D B.Yadagiri and another …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.3057 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short, ‘the Act’) is directed against the order and decree, dated 16.05.2003 in O.P.No.1082 of 2001 on the file of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby a compensation of Rs.2,68,000/- was awarded to the claimants as against their claim of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of the deceased V.Jangaiah in a motor accident. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the O.P. before the trial Court. 3. The petitioners filed O.P.No.1082 of 2001 on the file III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of the deceased V.Jangaiah in a motor accident. 4. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record, awarded a sum of Rs.2,68,000/- to the petitioners under all heads. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the petitioners have filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that the compensation awarded by the trial Court is very meager and disproportionate and the trial Court failed to appreciate Ex.A.7 salary certificate while arriving at the earning capacity of the deceased. 5. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled for enhancement of compensation. 6. The accident is not disputed before this Court. It is the contention of the petitioners that by the date of accident, the deceased was aged about 30 years and was earning Rs.4,500/- per month as a driver. In proof of his earnings, they relied on Ex.A7 salary certificate, which was issued by P.W.2. The trial Court disbelieved the evidence of P.W.2 on the ground that he is not a proper person to issue Ex.A.7 salary certificate. Though P.W.2 was cross-examined at length, he did not file any supporting document for issuance of Ex.A.7 salary certificate. In the absence of any documentary about the income of the deceased, the contention of the petitioners cannot be accepted. Therefore, the finings of the trial Court are sustainable while awarding compensation. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming the findings of the trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ K.S.APPA RAO, J FEBRUARY 03, 2011. YVL