THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO C.M.A. No. 3065 of 2003 DATE: 22-03-2011 Between: Kata Vijaya Kumar and 2 others .. Appellants And The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Kamareddy Depot, Nizamabad and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO C.M.A. No. 3065 of 2003 JUDGMENT: Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 15.04.2002 passed in O.P.No.38 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nizamabad, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the claimants alleging that the compensation granted by the lower Court is very meagre and the Court below failed to see that there is no rebuttal evidence adduced by the respondents and that the Court below failed to adopt the method of multiplier and ascertain the loss of dependency and only awarded conventional amount of Rs.25,000/-. Now the point for consideration is whether the judgment and decree of the lower Court is sustainable? As seen from the record, the O.P. No.38 of 1996 was filed by the injured late Kata Vijaya Kumar for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident on 02.11.1995. During the pendency of the above O.P., the injured died and the petitioners 2 and 3 were added as legal representatives of the deceased as per orders in I.A.No.1916 of 2000 dated 26.02.2001. In order to claim the compensation, the petitioners examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. On behalf of the respondents none were examined. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased and admittedly she is not a direct witness to the accident. It is not disputed the manner in which the accident occurred and the deceased sustained injuries. It is the contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the compensation granted by the lower Court is very meagre. As seen from record, P.W.2 shown as direct witness to the accident and the same was not disputed by the learned respondents’ counsel. Compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- was claimed for the injuries sustained by the deceased for pain and suffering and other incidental expenses. The lower Court while evaluating the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, came to the conclusion that the death of the deceased was not due to the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident. It is also the finding of the lower Court that the deceased sustained injuries as noted in Exs.A-3 and A-5. As the petition was filed towards pain and suffering for the injuries sustained by the claimant i.e. the injured- deceased, there is no tangible evidence on record by examining any medical officer in proof of the injuries sustained by the deceased. However, the Court below has given credence to Exs.A-3 and A-4, certified copy of wound certificate and medical bills, and granted compensation of Rs.25,000/- as conventional sum under the head of loss of estate. Since the petitioners filed claim petition claiming compensation for the pain and suffering and towards the incidental expenses for the treatment of the injuries sustained by the injured and as the injured is no more and the finding of the lower Tribunal is that the death was not due to the injuries sustained by the injured, granting the amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) as conventional sum is just and reasonable. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the finding of the lower Tribunal. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. _______________ K.S.APPA RAO, J 22-03-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO C.M.A. No. 3065 of 2003 DATE: 22-03-2011 MR