IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.134 OF 2000 BETWEEN Smt. N. Mangamma and three others. …APPELLANTS AND Surjeet Singh and another. …RESPONDENTS Counsel for the appellants: Mr. Venugopala Rao Pasnooru Counsel for the Respondents: MR. Ch. Srinivas The Court made the following: - JUDGMENT: This appeal is by the claimants seeking enhancement over the amount awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in O.P.No.1012 of 1997 dated 30.11.1999. The total claim for compensation made by the claimant was for Rs.3,00,000/- whereas the tribunal has granted an aggregate amount of Rs.2,40,4000/- comprising of Rs.2,15,4000/- towards loss of dependency, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. To the extent of the disallowed part of the claim, the present appeal is filed. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. 3. The basic contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the assessment of income of the deceased made by the tribunal is on the lower side while the tribunal has assessed his income at Rs.1,500/- per month, according to the learned counsel for the appellants his actual income is Rs.3,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the appellants, further, claims that the loss of consortium has not been granted at least to the minimum of Rs.15,000/-. 4. It is evident from the record that the deceased was said to be only a vegetable vendor and there is absolutely no evidence in support of the case of the claimants that he was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. In fact, the grounds of appeal suggests that there cannot be documentary evidence to such a trade, which the deceased was carrying on. The tribunal below, in the absence of any evidence, has taken the minimum wage at Rs.1,500/- per month, which cannot be said to be unreasonable. The compensation awarded by the tribunal on the head of loss of dependency is assessed following the ratio in BHAGWAN DAS v. MOHD. ARIF[1] and an amount of Rs.2,15,400/- is awarded on that count, the same, therefore, needs no interference. So far as loss of consortium is concerned, no doubt, the tribunal below ought to have awarded the minimum amount of Rs.15,000/- and to that extent the claim of the appellants deserves to succeed. The civil miscellaneous appeal is accordingly allowed in part enhancing the compensation by a further sum of Rs.5,000/-, under the head loss of consortium, together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J October 23, 2009 DSK [1] 1987 (2) ALT 137