THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.3152 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the claimants against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen’s compensation, Rangareddy District & Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Rangareddy District, in W.C.No.15/2000(F). 2. Heard. 3. The brief facts are as follows: Deceased Janga Laxmaiah was a labourer on Tractor bearing No.AP 28 T 5263 with trailer No.AP 28T 5264 belonging to first opposite party. He was paid salary of Rs.2000/- a month. On 29.11.1995 at about 11.00 hours the deceased and some other labourers were proceeding in the said tractor from Thunkimetla towards Manneguda with a load of sand. When they reached Pargi Manneguda Road near Cheerlapur gate, the driver drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner in high speed, on account of which the deceased fell down and received serious injuries resulting in his death on the spot. On account of the death of the deceased, the petitioners claimed compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-. Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed their respective counters denying the petition averments. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following points were raised for consideration: 1. Whether late Janga Laxmaiah, deceased was a workman having been employed by the opposite party No.1 on his Tractor AP 28T 5263 & Troly AP 28T 5264 as a labourer as on the date of accident? 2. Whether the deceased died due to the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment with the opposite party No.1? 3. If so, to what extent of compensation the dependents of the deceased are entitled to? On behalf of the petitioners-applicants, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the opposite parties 1 and 2, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. Considering the material on record, the court below taking the age of the deceased as 33 years and his income as Rs.1176/- as per existing wages, granted a compensation of Rs.1,19,113/-. Aggrieved by the above quantum of compensation, the present appeal is filed. 4. Now, the only question that arises for consideration is, whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the court below is inappropriate as it is not in dispute that the petitioners are entitled for compensation in as much as no appeal is filed by the insurance company, who in fact is liable for payment of entire compensation. 5. The court below while taking the income of the petitioner at Rs.1176/- has not taken care of the possibility of enhancement of future earnings, as the petitioner was aged only 33 years. The accident has taken place in the year 1995 and the contention of the appellants that the deceased was being paid Rs.2000/- per month as salary as stated in the petition is unacceptable as it is impossible to believe that in 1995, a labourer was being paid a salary of Rs.2000/- per month. In fact, Rs.1176/- taken by the learned commissioner is more then reasonable. However, as the deceased was aged 33 years, he would have worked ordinarily at least for another period of 20 years, in which event there was possibility of his emoluments going up at least 2 to 3 times. Considering all these circumstances, I am inclined to enhance the compensation by 25% more, which comes to Rs.29,778/-, to the compensation awarded by the court below towards enhancement of future earnings. As such, the compensation is enhanced from Rs.1,19,113/- to Rs.1,48,891/- rounded up to Rs.1,50,000/-. 6. Accordingly, C.M.A. is partly allowed. Interest on the enhanced amount of compensation is at 6% per annum. No costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 30th November 2010, Rns