THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY M.A.C.M.A. No.965 of 2010 JUDGMENT: One Sri Bandala Srinivas, R/o.Pasumamula Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, was proceeding on a motorcycle on Hyderabad and Medak Road, Ranga Reddy District, on 07.12.2007. When he reached the outskirts of Jinnaram Village, a lorry bearing No.AP 9W 1389, owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2, dashed the motorcycle. Srinivas died instantly. His dependents, the appellants herein, filed O.P.No.420 of 2008 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’), claiming a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation. It was pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month by virtue of his employment in a private establishment and that he was aged about 24 years. The Tribunal passed an order, dated 04.01.2010, awarding a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation. This appeal is filed claiming further compensation of Rs.32,000/-. It is pleaded that though the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the appellants are entitled for a sum of Rs.4,32,000/-, it awarded only Rs.4,00,000/- on the ground that it cannot award a sum more than what is claimed. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. Before the Tribunal, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the appellants and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced by the respondents and only a copy of the insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1. The Tribunal found that the deceased died on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. Since there was no specific evidence, the income of the deceased was taken at Rs.3,000/- per month and one-third of the same was deducted towards his personal expenses. Multiplier ‘18’ was applied by treating the age of the deceased as 24 years. It is, no doubt, true that the loss of earnings of the deceased worked out to Rs.4,32,000/- on the basis of the figures referred to above. The appellants did not take any steps to seek amendment of the claim petition. In the absence of such amendment, the Tribunal was virtually handicapped from awarding the compensation over and above what was claimed. The Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants applies to the cases where the amendment of the claim is sought even at the fag end. No such efforts are made. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:02.07.2010 kdl