THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2737 of 1999 Dated:16.11.2009 Between: Madagoni Venkaiah, And others. ….Petitioners And Shaik Babu Miya, And another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2737 of 1999 ORDER: Madagoni Shankar aged about 18 years died in a motor accident on 15.04.1996. On that day he was going to school on a cycle. Lorry bearing No.AET 7591 dashed against the cycle in a rash and negligent manner. He sustained injuries, as a result of which, he died. His father who was a toddy tapper, the mother and three siblings instituted O.P.No.514 of 1996 claiming Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda. The same was opposed by the insurer. Evidence was let in. The father gave evidence as P.W.1, besides examining eyewitness to the accident as P.W.2. Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. There was no evidence on behalf of the respondents. Considering the totality of the circumstances and evidence, learned Tribunal awarded Rs.75,000/- lump sum compensation. Feeling aggrieved, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed. Learned Counsel for the appellants relies on the evidence of P.W.1 and contends that the deceased was helping his father in toddy business after school hours and was earning Rs.1,200/- per month. Therefore, she would urge to take the same into consideration and apply the multiplier 10.45 (taking average age of the parents as 45 years) while determining the compensation. Learned Counsel also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Shanti Bai v Charan Singh[1]. After perusing the judgment, though the facts are somewhat similar, this Court is convinced that in that case the evidence was let in that the brother of deceased himself was earning Rs.10/- per day. In the case on hand, no such evidence was let in, and therefore, the case cited can be distinguishable on facts. This Court has also perused the evidence relied on. Except P.W.1, father, saying that the deceased was earning Rs.1,200/- per month as helper to his father, there is no such independent evidence. In such circumstances, granting Rs.75,000/- lump sum towards loss of dependency by the Tribunal does not warrant any interference. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal for the above reasons fails, and is accordingly dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 16.11.2009 vs [1] (1998) 5 SCC 359