IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THIS THE 5th DAY OF AUGUST, 2010 CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2401 of 2003 Between United India Insurance Co. Ltd., rep. by its Sr. Divisional Manager …APPELLANT(S) A N D Koti Veera Reddy and others …RESPONDENT(S) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2401 of 2003 ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard both sides. 2. Questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, (for brevity “the Tribunal”), in O.P.No.184 of 2000, by order and decree, dated 16.01.2003, under no fault liability, for the death of K.Manik Reddy (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased) in a road accident that occurred on 27.03.2000, the appellant-United India Insurance Company Limited has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 3. The appellant is the insurer, 1st and 2nd respondents are the claimants/legal heirs of the deceased and 3rd respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle i.e. Auto. 4. The particulars regarding the method and the manner in which the accident took place and the rash and negligence etc., are not referred to herein, as they are not in dispute. 5. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation to the claimants for the death of the deceased, in the accident. 6. The only point that arises for consideration, in this appeal, is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is proper and justified? 7. I have carefully gone through the impugned award, along with other material, available on record. The Tribunal, having elaborately dealt with all the aspects, came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased, in the accident, under ‘no fault liability’. In cases where the Tribunal awarded a minimum amount of compensation under the head ‘no fault liability’, it is inexpedient for this Court to interfere with the impugned award. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned award. 8. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ D.S.R.VARMA, J 05th AUGUST 2010 CVRK