THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2744 of 2003 Dated 16th September, 2010 Between: V.Ramanamma and 5 others …Appellants And S.A.Rahiman and 2 others …Respondents Counsel for the Appellants : Mr.K.Somakonda Reddy Counsel for the respondents: ---- The Court made the following: Order: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of award, dated 21-07-2001, in MVOP.No.952 of 1999 on the file of the II Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool (for short ‘the Tribunal’). The appellants are the claimants in the above- mentioned MVOP. They are the legal heirs of the deceased Velpula Yesanna @ V.Chinna Bala Venkataiah (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’). The case of the appellants is that while the deceased was travelling in auto bearing No.AP 13 T 8258 on 02-08-1999 from Damagatla Village to Nandikotkur, the said auto collided with the bus bearing registration No.AP 10 Z 3760 belonging to the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) of Atmakur depot. In support of the claim of the appellants, appellant No.1 has examined herself as PW.1 and one G.Samanna, who was stated to be travelling with the deceased at the time of the accident, as PW.2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.4. On behalf of the respondents, respondent No.1, who is the driver of the Corporation, got examined himself as RW.1. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.84,050/- as compensation under various heads with interest thereon @ 12% p.a., from the date of the petition till the date of realization. The Tribunal has awarded a further sum of Rs.5,000/- each to appellant Nos.5 and 6 with interest thereon. Feeling aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants have filed this appeal. Though notices were served on the respondents, no one entered appearance on their behalf and at the hearing, no one is present. Sri K.Somakonda Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellants, submitted that the Tribunal, on the finding that there is contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the auto, apportioned the compensation in the ratio of 50:50 between the driver of the auto and respondent No.1 i.e., the driver of the Corporation. He further submitted that while there is no dispute regarding the age of the deceased and the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal, the income of the deceased at Rs.50/- per day, as assessed by the Tribunal, is incorrect. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the apex Court in Laxmi Devi and others vs. Mohammad Tabbar and another[1]. I have carefully examined the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellants. In the case decided by the Supreme Court, the accident has occurred on 12-04-2004 whereas in the present case, the accident has taken place in the year 1999. Therefore, in my opinion, the same wages, which were adopted by the Supreme Court in the year 2004, cannot be straight away adopted by the Tribunal in the year 1999, while I find force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants that a sum of Rs.50/- per day as daily wage of the deceased even in the year 1999 is too low. In my opinion, it is reasonable to take Rs.75/- per day as daily wage of the deceased in the year 1999. Accordingly, award, dated 21-07-2001, in MVOP.No.952 of 1999, on the file of the Tribunal, is modified by directing that the sum of Rs.50/- per day as the income of the deceased, as assessed by the Tribunal, be increased to Rs.75/- per day. The award in all other aspects is upheld. The Tribunal shall, accordingly, recompute the compensation awarded to the appellants in terms of this judgment. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till payment is made. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is ordered accordingly. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 16th September, 2010 lur [1] (2008) 12 SCC 165