THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.157 of 2008 JUDGMENT: Being aggrieved by the order and decree dated 21.08.2006 in M.V.O.P.No.118 of 2002 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Ongole, the present appeal is filed urging that the Tribunal ought to have considered Ex.B.1 in which the petitioners are acquitted and that the Tribunal ought not to have taken the income of the deceased as Rs.1,500/- per month without there being any satisfactory proof. It is also further urged that the claimants were given Rs.1,00,000/- under Apadhbandhu Scheme, therefore, further awarding of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation comes under doctrine of enrichment. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Tribunal rejecting the contention of the Government for not granting of any compensation apart from the compensation given under Apadhbandhu Scheme is sustainable? The manner in which the accident was occurred was admitted. The Tribunal below granted compensation of Rs.1,05,500/- under different heads against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/-. The finding of the Tribunal is based on the judgment reported in A.P.S.R.T.C., Hyderabad v Kouser Banu & others[1] and also in S.Anji Reddy v Sk.Madarsaheb[2]. Admittedly, the claimants are the legal representatives of the deceased. Ex.B.2 is the letter dated 17.11.2001 of M.R.O., Singarayakonda, recommending the Collector for granting of Rs.1,00,000/- to the deceased Peyyala Venkaiah and the said amount was disbursed by Ex.B.3 receipt. The Tribunal in the impugned order observed that the amount paid by the Government under ‘Apatbandhu Padhakam’ as exgratia cannot be taken into consideration to assess damages under Motor Vehicles Act. Further, the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid prior to the filing of the M.V.O.P. Though the Government has taken the specific plea on the doctrine of enrichment the Court below while placing reliance on the above two decisions disagreed with the arguments advanced by the Government and granted compensation of Rs.1,05,500/-. In view of the finding of the Tribunal given by placing reliance on A.P.S.R.T.C., Hyderabad (one supra), the grant of Rs.1,05,500/- towards compensation under Motor vehicles Act is no way detrimental to the amount granted under ‘Apatbandhu Padhakam’. Hence, I see no grounds in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. _______________ K.S.APPA RAO, J 21st March, 2011 PNV [1] 1991 Law Summary 3 (SRC) [2] 1992(2) Law Summary, 13 (S.R.C.)