THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.2751 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the award which was amended by order dated 2.4.2004 passed by the District Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry in I.A.No.971 of 2004 in O.P.No.383 of 2000. The petitioners are the parents of the deceased Repaka Vasudevarao, who is said to be running a kirana shop and fair price shop earning Rs.3,000/- per month and died in a motor accident. The claim was made as against the driver, owner and the insurance company. 2. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record originally granted a compensation of Rs.1,53,000/- by taking into consideration of the amount payable under no fault liability as Rs.1,00,000/- instead of Rs.50,000/- and the loss of dependency as Rs.53,000/- and consequently passed an award for Rs.1,53,000/-. Thereafter, the insurance company filed I.A.No.971 of 2004, contending that the liability under no fault liability under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, is only Rs.50,000/- and consequently the Tribunal has erred in fixing the compensation at Rs.1,00,000/- agreeing with the compensation as against the award for Rs.1,53,000/-, the Tribunal has reduced the compensation to Rs.1,03,000/-. 3. Questioning the quantum of compensation, the claimants have filed this appeal. 4. The point for consideration is whether the amount of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable? 5. Evidently when a claim is made under Section 166 of M.V. Act, the Tribunal has to proceed the determination of the dependency and compensation taking into consideration of the age, earning capacity and the dependency. The question of determination of compensation under ‘no fault liability’ does not arise in such a claim under Section 166 of M.V.Act. 6. As seen from the award of the lower Tribunal, evidently it is erred in considering the compensation as one under no fault liability and the other about the loss of earning capacity. This method adopted by the lower Tribunal is not proper. Evidently the deceased was un-married and the claimants are the parents. There is no proof that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month as claimed in the petition. But, however taking into consideration of the fact that he was said to be running kirana shop and also the fact that there is likelihood of future earnings and keeping in view of the age of the mother, I feel the ends of justice would meet if a compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- is granted instead of Rs.1,03,000/- as granted by the lower Tribunal. 7. Accordingly, the award is modified and the appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. ___________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J Date:03.11.2011. Gk THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.2751 of 2011 Date: 03.11.2011 Gk.