THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 1962 of 2011 And C.M.A. No. 1749 of 2004 COMMON JUDGMENT: Both the appeals arise out of the judgment dated 13.02.2004 in O.P.No.1172 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-II Additional District Judge, Kadapa. The claim was made for compensation consequent on the death of the deceased Inikamma in a motor accident. According to the case of the claimants, on 01.04.2000 at about 5.30 p.m. when she was returning from the coolie work from a quarry near Khaderpalli cross road a Tata Sumo bearing No.AP-04-C-2626 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, as a result of which, she received injuries and died. The 1st claimant is said to be the mother and the 2nd claimant is said to be the minor son of the deceased. She was said to be earning Rs.75/- per day. The 1st respondent remained ex parte in the lower Tribunal. The 2nd respondent-insurance company filed a counter stating that the Tata Sumo was not involved in the incident and it was not at all there at the scene at the time of incident. According to the 2nd respondent, the then Sub-Inspector in order to help the owner of the tractor-cum- trailer has involved the Tata Sumo and the deceased has received injuries in a motor accident while traveling on the tractor driven by a driver without a valid driving license. In fact, the Sub-Inspector was also found to have been suspended by the higher authorities for manipulation of the case to help the owner of the tractor. Therefore, the 2nd respondent disowned the liability. After considering the evidence on record, the lower Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs.1,18,200/- as against the claim of Rs.2,50,000/-. Aggrieved by the said judgment dated 13.02.2004, M.A.C.M.A. No.1962 of 2011 was filed by the insurance company and questioning the quantum of compensation C.M.A.No.1749 of 2004 was filed by the claimants. The points that arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the Tata Sumo bearing No.AP-04-C-2626 was involved in the incident? 2. Whether the compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is reasonable and if not whether the claimants are entitled for any enhancement? POINTS: The death of the deceased in a motor accident is not disputed. According to the case of the claimants supported by the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3, who are said to be the eye witnesses to the incident, the deceased while going from the quarry after attending the labour work, met with the accident and the driver of the Tata Sumo drove it in a rash and negligent manner. In order to discredit the testimony of these P.Ws.2 and 3, an effort was made by the learned counsel for the insurance company that Ex.B-1 charge sheet clearly goes to show that the tractor-trailer was involved in the accident and not the Tata Sumo and, therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 should have been discarded. The lower Tribunal did not accept this contention on the ground that the Sub-Inspector of Police, who has conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet, was not examined and in the absence of such evidence, the document itself cannot be taken into consideration. Apart from that, it is to be noted that the deceased was a labourer and P.Ws.2 and 3 were also labourers. At the earliest point of time, the complaint was given by P.W.2 stating that the deceased died in the motor accident due to rash and negligent driving of the Tata Sumo by its driver. When they are illiterates living by coolie work, it is difficult to believe that they would have manipulated the First Information Report. At that stage, one can understand if a non-insured vehicle was mentioned in the complaint and thereafter the vehicle was substituted for the purpose of unlawful gain from the insurance company. But, in this case, at the earliest point of time when the complaint was given by P.W.2, the factum of involvement of the Tata Sumo was clearly mentioned. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, who are eye witnesses, cannot be discarded and the mere filing of the charge sheet by the Sub-Inspector of Police against the driver of the tractor-trailer does not establish that there is no involvement of the Tata Sumo or the rashness or negligence attributed to the driver of the Tata Sumo. Therefore, the lower Tribunal has rightly accepted the evidence of the eye witnesses supported by the earliest version in the First Information Report and I do not think that there are any reasons to interfere with the findings of the lower Tribunal about the involvement of the Tata Sumo. So far as the claim of the appellants with regard to the enhancement of the compensation is concerned, evidently, the 1st claimant is the mother and the 2nd claimant is the minor son of the deceased. The earning capacity of the deceased was taken as 900/- per month and annual contribution was fixed at Rs.7,200/- after deducting one-third towards her personal expenses. Taking into consideration of the age, the multiplier ‘16’ was applied. The total compensation awarded by the lower Tribunal is Rs.1,18,200/-. But, however, the lower Tribunal has not granted any compensation towards non-pecuniary damages or for the funeral expenses and the incidental charges. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the compensation is enhanced to Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty five thousand only). The interest shall be carried on the total amount at 7.5% per annum. Accordingly, both the appeals are disposed of. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 12-09-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 1962 of 2011 And C.M.A. No. 1749 of 2004 DATE: 12-09-2011 MR