THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1397 OF 2011 AND 1464 OF 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT: Both the appeals arise out of a common Order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, in O.P.Nos.628 of 2000 and 929 of 2000 concerning the death of the deceased Gangaram. 2. O.P.No.628 of 2000 was filed by the wife, mother, father and also the daughter of the deceased claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- consequent on the death of the deceased Gangaram in a motor accident. The incident is said to have happened on 19.03.2000 when the deceased was peddling his rickshaw near Venkateshwara Talkies, Bodhan, a jeep bearing No. AP 25 T 6270 driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner and caused the injuries and the deceased died due to the injuries. It was claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. O.P.No.929 of 2000 was filed by the wife and the daughter of the deceased claiming a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of the deceased Gangaram on the ground that he was doing agricultural work, business and also selling milk. All of them claimed to be dependants on the deceased. It was alleged in this O.P. that while the deceased was keeping his goods in the rickshaw the incident was happened. The 1st respondent is the owner of the jeep and the 2nd respondent is the insurance company. The 1st respondent remained ex parte in both the O.Ps and the 2nd respondent, who is the appellant herein, denied the nature of the allegations about the rashness and negligence attributed to the driver of the jeep and also the earning capacity of the deceased, the dependency and also the insurance of the vehicle. Both the O.Ps., were clubbed together. On behalf of the petitioners, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6. On behalf of the respondents, no evidence is adduced. After considering the evidence on record, the lower Tribunal found that the incident was due to the fault of the driver of the jeep and taking into consideration the earning capacity of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month, granted the compensation and apportioned the same to the dependants. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the stand of the petitioners was not consistent regarding the earnings of the deceased and there is also a mis-description of the names and the lower Tribunal has failed to take into consideration that the earlier claim was only for Rs.3,00,000/-, whereas the subsequent claim was for Rs.5,00,000/-, evidently made to get more compensation and therefore, the award of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. 4. There is no dispute about the cause of death of the deceased. Even though there is said to be some misdescription with regard to the names, the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased is not seriously disputed. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the finding of the lower Tribunal that the deceased was related to the petitioners and he died in a motor accident cannot be faulted. 5. The question before the Court is whether the lower Tribunal justified in taking into consideration the earning capacity of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-. Evidently, the allegations in the first petition shows that the deceased was only a rickshaw puller, whereas when the 2nd petition was filed, the claimants have stated that the deceased was doing fish business and also agriculture and earning nearly Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month. When once the earlier application was filed by all the persons, naturally the 2nd petition should not have been entertained by the Tribunal. But, however, the 2nd petition was filed only by the wife and the daughter. There is also no material evidence to show that without the consent of the wife and the daughter, O.P.No.628 of 2000 was filed by the parents of the deceased. 6. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the pleadings, which were made at the earliest point of time have to be taken into consideration rather than the developed version in the subsequent petition. Even otherwise to prove that the deceased was earning by any business or by agriculture, there is absolutely no evidence except the interested testimony of PW.1. Further-more, even in the second petition also the allegation was that the incident was happened when the deceased was with the rickshaw and putting the goods in the rickshaw. But the particulars of it are wanting. The incident has happened on 19.03.2000 at Bodhan. The earning capacity of the rickshaw puller or even a liberal view is taken, during at that time cannot be taken as Rs.3,000/-. 7. Therefore, taking into consideration the above circumstances, the income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.2,000/- and after deducting the personal expenditure, the contribution to the family is fixed at Rs.1,500/- and the annual contribution comes to Rs.18,000/- and after applying the multiplier as applied by the lower Tribunal it comes to Rs.3,06,000/-. The petitioners were granted a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. The total compensation petitioner will be entitled to is Rs.3,26,000/-. The insurance of the vehicle being admitted, the said amount is liable to be paid by the appellants. The apportionment shall be as per the order of the lower Tribunal. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are allowed in part. No costs. _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J Date: 12.07.2011 INL