THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO C.M.A. No.3586 of 2003 JUDGMENT: Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the order and decree dated 29-12-2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/-, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the claimants- appellants. Succinctly the facts of the case are as follows: On 31-07-1995, at about 11-00 a.m., when the deceased- M.Rajendra Kumar was standing on the side of the road, near Bus Stand, Navipet, RTC bus bearing No. AP-9Z-3626 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed came behind him, without blowing horn, dashed him, as a result of which, he fell down and front wheel of the bus run-over him, due to which he sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. On behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A16 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RWs.1 to 3 were examined, but no documents were marked, before the Tribunal. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the Tribunal erred in assessing the earning capacity of the deceased, and awarded only meager compensation. Now the point for consideration is whether the appellants- claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation? As can be seen from the material available on record, it goes to show that the appellants herein are the parents of the deceased-M. Rajendra Kumar, who died in the accident on 31-07-1995. It is not in dispute that the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle in question and the manner of the accident was also not disputed by the respondents. The Tribunal, while granting compensation to the claimants, observed that the claimants did not adduce any evidence with regard to the age and income of the deceased. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that due to the death of the deceased in the said accident, the appellants left unattended. In the evidence of PW1, it came to light that due to the sudden demise of the deceased, the kirana shop run by him, was closed. No iota of evidence was placed before the Tribunal regarding closure of the kirana shop. Had the deceased been in kirana business, certainly there would be some documentary evidence regarding the purchases and sales of the said kirana business. In the absence of any such evidence, it can be said that the evidence adduced on that score through P.W.1 cannot be swallowed. The lower court has taken the age of the deceased as 30 years as per the inquest report, which, in my view, is just and correct. In view of the finding of the Tribunal and also the totality of the circumstances, granting of Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation as held by the Tribunal is justified and needs no interference. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. _________________ K.S. APPA RAO, J Dated: 11 -2-2011 Rkk/NDR