IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.633 OF 2000 BETWEEN Boreddy Chinnapureddy and another. …APPELLANTS AND V. Rambabu and another. …RESPONDENTS Counsel for the appellant: Mr. T. Niranjan Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following: - JUDGMENT: This appeal is by the claimants, who are the parents of the deceased, Boreddy Innayya Reddy, who died in the accident in question occurred on 10.07.1991. The accident in question occurred when the deceased, only son of the claimants, was hit by the offending lorry bearing No. APQ 7026 on account of it being driven in a rash and negligent manner. Apart from the criminal proceedings against the driver of the offending vehicle under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, the present claim in MVOP.No.493 of 1991 seeking an aggregate sum of Rs.80,000/- was made by the claimant before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool. 2. Under the impugned order, the tribunal has allowed the said claim to the extent of granting a sum of Rs.25,500/- in aggregate towards compensation. The said aggregate amount comprises of Rs.7,500/- towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities; another sum of Rs,7,500/- towards loss of expectation of life and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of dependency at an interest of 12% per annum on the said aggregate amount. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. Though served, none appears for the second respondent. 4. The evidence on record shows that the deceased was working as a mason and as per the evidence of P.W.2, co-worker and mason contractor, the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.40/- per day. Apart from the evidence of P.W.2, Ex.X1 - the account notebook maintained by him was produced before the tribunal. The tribunal, however, has not attached any evidentiary value to the said document and the tribunal accepted the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that the deceased was working as a mason, which was consistent with the statement recorded by the police immediately after the accident. The tribunal also found that the deceased was aged 20 years and working as mason earning Rs.40/- per day. However, while assessing the loss of dependency the tribunal was of the view that the claimants, who are the parents of the deceased, were aged 43 and 35 years respectively and were cultivating their own agricultural land of 4 acres and as such, it cannot be said that they were dependants on the deceased and therefore, only a sum of Rs.10,000/- notionally was awarded. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the said approach of the tribunal is erroneous inasmuch as the claimants had lost their only son, who was working and earning Rs.40/- per day and thereby his income per month would be Rs.1,200/-. Even by applying a very conservative estimate also there is certainly loss of dependency so far as the claimants are concerned and keeping in view the reasonable aggregate claim of Rs.80,000/- sought for in the claim petition, the tribunal ought to have awarded a reasonable amount towards loss of dependency. 6. I find force in the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the appellants and irrespective of the fact whether the claimants are carrying on their avocation as cultivators, the loss of their only son to them, especially who was working as a mason and earning Rs.40/- per day, ought to have been taken into consideration by the tribunal. Further, the loss of consortium and loss of estate having been only awarded at Rs.7,500/- each, the loss of dependency deserves to be allowed. The tribunal in that respect ought to have granted at least a sum of Rs.50,000/- as against a sum of Rs.10,000/-. Once the tribunal accepted that the deceased was earning Rs.40/- per day as a mason based on the evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.X1, keeping in view the age of the younger of the parents of the deceased and keeping in view the total amount claimed by the claimants only at Rs.80,000/-, it would be just and proper to modify the award by granting a further sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of dependency and the rest of the amount awarded by the tribunal below warrants no interference. The civil miscellaneous appeal is accordingly allowed and the decree under appeal is modified by granting a further sum of Rs.40,000/-, under the head loss of dependency, with an interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till realization. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J October 23, 2009 DSK