IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3529 of 2000 Between: Koutla aVijayalakshmi ..... Appellant AND K.Sudershan and another. ....Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3529 of 2000 JUDGMENT : This appeal is filed by the claimants seeking to challenge the order of the tribunal below to the extent of disallowed claim. 2) The claim petition was filed by the claimants seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of the death of the husband of the 1st claimant and father of 2nd claimant. The deceased died in an accident, which occurred on 19.04.1994, when they hired a tractor bearing No.APR 2947 and trailer No.2948 to shift their household furniture from Mandamarri to the native village Subramapalli. The accident took place resulting in death of three persons including the husband of the 1st claimant. On the advise of some well wishers, the claimants initially filed O.P. No.144 of 1995 by engaging a counsel, who was examined in this O.P by Insurance was R.W-2. The said O.P was filed claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. In the said O.P. No.144 of 1995, the claimants claimed that the deceased was a labour. Ex.B-2 is the copy of the said claim petition exhibited in this O.P. The said claim petition was later withdrawn and the present claim petition was filed claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and further claiming that the deceased was a brick manufacturer and not a labourer. 3) The evidence adduced before the tribunal below by the claimants as P.W-1 and P.W-2, who was traveling along with the deceased on the date of accident. The tribunal below considered the evidence adduced by the claimants in the light of Ex.A-1 to A-4 which were marked on their behalf i.e., first information report, final report in the police case, Post Mortem report and the inquest report. Whereas the insurance company produced and marked Exs.B-1 to B-3 i.e., insurance policy, copy of the earlier O.P.No.144 of 1995 and the deposition of R.W-1 in another O.P. No.109 of 1995 apart from the evidence of R.Ws 1 and 2. The tribunal below found that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending tractor and trailer and held that respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e., owner and insurance company are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, though the said O.P. No.144 of 1995 filed earlier was withdrawn, the averments made therein were uncontroverted and therefore, the tribunal below assessed the compensation payable on the ground that the deceased was a labourer and keeping in view his age and applying the multiplier granted Rs.86,400/- towards dependency and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium apart from Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and thereby aggregate compensation of Rs.1,01,400/- with interest at 15% p.a. 4) In this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously contended that the awarded compensation is too low and keeping in view the claimants’ case, the deceased was a brick manufacturer. The assessment of dependency by treating him as a labour was not justified. It is also contended that the sole bread winner of the family of the claimants has died and just and adequate compensation ought to have been granted by the tribunal below. Learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company further submits that the claim itself has been wrongly allowed by the tribunal below apart from the fact that the interest awarded is very high. 5) I have considered the aforesaid submissions. Even assuming that we can ignore all the contentions and claims made in O.P. No.144 of 1995 earlier claimed by the claimants, there is no evidence let in by the claimants in the present case to establish that the deceased who was a brick manufacturer. The absence of evidence therefore left no alternative for the tribunal below to proceed to assess the income of the deceased by treating him as a labourer and treating the income of the deceased in that capacity and after deducting the personal expenses applied the proper multiplier keeping in view of his age. I am therefore not able to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the income of the deceased has to be treated as a brick manufacturer and warranting enhancement of compensation in the absence of any evidence. Therefore, no interference is called for with the said finding of the tribunal below. 6) Secondly the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondent also liable to be rejected in as much as no appeal has been filed by the insurance company and in the present appeal none of these grounds raised by the learned counsel can be countenanced so as to deny or reduce the benefit of award to the claimants. In that view of the matter, the appeal has no merits and is liable to be dismissed. 7) Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR NOVEMBER 25, 2009 KSH