IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2640 of 2003 Between: Teppala Ravanamma .. Appellant AND Moturi Veeranjaneyulu and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award dated 17-03-2003 in MVOP.No.481 of 1998 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam. The claimants, who are appellants, relying on Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and others (2003 (1) ALD (SC) 1) desired the compensation of Rs.1,90,000/- arrived at as the just and adequate compensation by the Tribunal be awarded notwithstanding their claim being only for Rs.1,00,000/- before the Tribunal, which was granted by the Tribunal. Sri A. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the appellants in his usual fairness placed before this Court the judgment of this Court in C.M.A.No.2690 of 2003 dated 21-10-2010 by which another Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arising out of the same accident was dismissed. The learned Judge dealing with the claim for compensation for the death of a 5 year old boy in the same accident in respect of whom compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- was claimed and awarded by the Tribunal was answering the claim for higher compensation with reference to Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and others’s case. The learned Judge noted that while the Apex Court held that the Tribunal is empowered to award higher compensation than claimed, it found on facts that the income of the claimants was not taken into account in assessing the compensation. The learned Judge also noted the difficulty in assessing the compensation in respect of the death of children of tender age and noted any specific plea and evidence about the potential of the deceased to be absent. Consequently, the learned Judge disallowed an identical claim as made herein. The present claim also is in respect of the death of a boy aged about 5 years and the evidence on record is broadly similar. So, for the same reasons adopted by the learned Judge in the other case, this appeal also should fail. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 05-08-2011 Ksn