THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 1633 of 2003 J U D G M E N T: The claimants in O.P.No. 591 of 2002 filed this appeal, aggrieved by the order dated 29.01.2003 passed by the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District Judge at Warangal, whereunder the learned Judge granted compensation at Rs. 9,46,000/- for the death of Sri Balasubramanyam (henceforth referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a motor accident that occurred on 25.01.2002 when a lorry bearing No. AP 36T 1422 hit him while he was proceeding on a Bajaj Chetak scooter bearing No. AP 36 6081 from Hanamkonda to Kazipet. The case of the appellants is that the deceased was working as an employee in South Central Railway at Kazipet and was earning Rs.12,780/- per month and he has got seven more years service as on the date of his death. They stated that they have incurred more expenditure for his treatment, as he was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad, on the advise of the doctors. Therefore, they contend that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not at all sufficient on any count. The Insurance company, the 2nd respondent, filed a counter- affidavit denying its liability. It is stated that the claim made by the appellants is on higher side. It is further stated that the accident took place only on account of the rash and negligence on the part of the deceased himself and that there is violation of policy conditions. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. (1) Whether the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver belonging to the 1st respondent or due to the rash and negligence on the part of the deceased himself resulting in his death? (2) What was the age and income of the deceased by the date of accident? Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? (3) To what relief? During the course of trial, on behalf of the appellants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. The Tribunal, after careful consideration of the entire material available on record, both oral and documentary, held that there was no negligence on the part of the deceased and accordingly, granted Rs.9,46,000/- as compensation to the appellants, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of its realization and with costs. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has not appreciated the factual matrix of the case properly and it failed to award any amount towards pain and suffering and other incidental expenses incurred by the appellants. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company, on the other hand submits that the Tribunal has considered the matter in a proper perspective and therefore, no interference need be warranted therein. At the outset, it has to be noticed that this is a case where one Balasubrahmanyam died in the accident. Therefore, there is no question of granting compensation on the count of pain and suffering. A perusal of the order under appeal prima facie shows that the Tribunal has taken all aspects into consideration and awarded a just and reasonable compensation and therefore, there is no justification for this Court to enhance the compensation beyond what has been awarded by the Tribunal. The civil miscellaneous appeal is therefore, dismissed on this ground alone. No costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. 19th August 2010 ksld THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1943 of 2004 17th June 2010 CVRK