THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY M.A.C.M.A No.3862 of 2009 (Dated : 11-11-2009) Between: Chintalapudi Veeramma R/o Thotlavallur, Krishna District and others ….Appellants A n d Md.Islam S/o Nuruddin Vuyyuru and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY M.A.C.M.A No.3862 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25.07.2005 passed in M.V.O.P.No.30 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Krishna at Vijayawada, whereby and whereunder, the learned Additional District Judge granted compensation of Rs.40,000/- with interest at 7.5% from the date of the petition till date of realization. 2. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants preferred this appeal. 3. When the appeal came up for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3-Insurance company, it is taken up for final disposal. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 5. The petitioners are the claimants in M.V.O.P.No.30 of 2004 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Krishna, at Vijayawada (for short, “the tribunal”). They are wife and children of Chintalapudi China Gopalam. They filed the O.P claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the death of Chintalapudi China Gopalam in a road accident occurred on 04.11.2003. On the date of the accident, Chintalapudi China Gopalam (hereinafter referred to as `the deceased’) was proceeding towards Bade Saheb tank of Vuyyru. While so, a vehicle bearing No.AP 07-V-3730 came in high speed and dashed against him, and as a result, he sustained bleeding injuries. He was admitted in Government Hospital, Vijayawada and while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to the injuries on 19.11.2003. A case in Crime No.210 of 2003 was registered against the driver of the crime vehicle. According to the claimants, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. The deceased was working as a coolie and earning Rs.2,000/- per month. Because of the death of the deceased, the claimants are deprived of his earnings. Therefore, they have put in a claim of Rs.1,50,000/-. According to them, the 1st respondent is the driver of the vehicle and 2nd respondent is the owner of the vehicle and the 3rd respondent is the insurer of the vehicle and therefore, all of them are liable to pay compensation jointly and severally. 6. The driver and owner of the vehicle remained ex parte. 7. The insurer of the vehicle filed counter resisting the claim of the claimants. The 3rd respondent-insurer disputed the earning of the deceased and his contribution to the claimants. The tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “ 1. Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle ? 2. Whether the deceased was earning Rs.2,000/-per month ? 3. Whether the petitioners are depending on the deceased for their livelihood? 4. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as claimed for? 5. To what relief?” 8. On behalf of the claimants, two witnesses were examined as Pws.1 and 2, and four documents were marked as Exs.A-1 to A-4. On behalf of the third respondent, one witness was examined as Rw.1 and three documents were marked as Exs.B-1 to B-3. 9. The learned tribunal, on considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle, and thereby, proceeded to grant compensation of Rs.40,000/- to the claimants, by judgment dated 25.7.2005. Para 9 of the judgment needs to be noted and it is thus: “ The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the crime vehicle is a light motor vehicle and its weight is less than 6000 kgs. Hence the insurance policy is not covered for the mini lorry. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 holds no water. In Ex.P.1 it was clearly stated that the mini lorry was loaded with “centry chekkalu” i.e., the wooden sheets used for construction of building slabs. There is no evidence on record to show that what was weight of mini lorry, which was loaded with wooden pieces. In view of the description in the F.I.R about loading of wooden sheets by the lorry I am of the opinion that the respondents failed to establish that the mini lorry is not covered by the insurance. Ex.B.1 is the policy marked on behalf of the 3rd respondent. In view of the above discussion, the insurance company is liable to pay the amount. Ex.B.1 shows that the policy for the crime lorry was from 26.6.2003 to 25.6.2004. The incident took place on 4.11.2003. Hence, Ex.B.1 also was subsisting by the date of the accident.” Hence, this appeal by the claimants. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants-claimants submit that the deceased was an earning member and therefore, minimum wages were to be taken into consideration for arriving at the loss of dependency. 11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 submit that the deceased was not an earning member and he was eaking out his livelihood by begging and his contribution to the appellants was nothing and therefore, the tribunal was justified in awarding compensation of Rs.40,000/- only. 12. In view of the submissions made by the respective counsel appearing for the parties, the only issue that arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and reasonable? 13. PW.1 is claimant No.1 and she is the wife of the deceased. In Ex.A-1, attested copy of the F.I.R., it has been stated that the deceased was suffering from ill health and he was eaking out his livelihood by begging. The First Information Report was given by one of the sons of the deceased. Even if the deceased was taken as a non-earning member, compensation at least must be not less than `No fault liability’. Considering the facts and circumstances, the compensation granted by the tribunal is enhanced from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.60,000/-. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part at the stage of admission enhancing the compensation from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.60,000/- with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of realization. The compensation shall be apportioned among the petitioners equally. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.11-11-2009 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY M.A.C.M.A No.3862 of 2009 (Dated : 11-11-2009)