HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.5243 of 2008 Date: 01-7-2011 Between The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Having its Div. Office at Kadapa, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Madras Road, Chinna Chowk, Kadapa district … Appellant/Respondent No.2 and Mangala Ramulamma and 6 others … Respondents/Claimants N.Venkata Ratnam … Respondent/Respondent No.1 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.5243 of 2008 Judgment: Heard Smt. A.Jayanthi, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company. 2. Being aggrieved with the award and decree dated 25-02-2008 in M.V.O.P.No.484 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa the present civil miscellaneous appeal is filed. 3. The appellant herein is the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company in M.V.O.P.No.484 of 2004. The claimants filed the said M.V.O.P., claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of one Mangala Venkatesu, husband of the 1st claimant, son of the 2nd claimant and father of the claimants 3 to 7 who died in a motor accident on 05-4-2004 near Market Yard, Jammalamadugu. The tribunal below while considering the evidence on record awarded a compensation of Rs.3,93,500/-. Being aggrieved, the present civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the Insurance Company. 4. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is of two fold – firstly; that the tribunal below ought not have granted compensation against the Insurance Company as the deceased died on his own accord by falling from a moving vehicle as he being the foot-board traveller, secondly; the quantum of compensation granted by the tribunal below while assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month is erroneous. 5. Now, the point for consideration is -- whether the award of the tribunal below is sustainable ? 6 . Point:- In order to prove the accident, the claimants filed Exs.A-1 and A-4, certified copies of the First Information Report and the charge-sheet, respectively. The Police after due investigation filed charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle observing that the accident was occurred due to his negligence. Neither the driver nor the owner of the offending vehicle has adduced any evidence to rebut the same. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence, the documentary evidence Exs.A-1 and A-4 remained unchallenged. Therefore, from a combined reading of Exs.A-1 and A-4 and the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The finding of the tribunal below on this aspect is also on the same ground. 7. Accordingly, I see no ground to differ with the finding of the tribunal below and therefore, the argument advanced by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company does not hold water. 8. Secondly, regarding the amount of compensation, the tribunal below while taking into consideration the age of the deceased at 39 years as on the date of accident, arrived at the income as Rs.3,000/- per month. As per the evidence of P.W.1, they owned properties. In order to prove the same, she filed pattadar passbooks. The finding of the tribunal below is that if Rs.100/- is taken as daily wage of the deceased, his monthly income becomes Rs.3,000/-. 9. Admittedly, as per the evidence of P.W.1, the deceased was hale and healthy and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month as on the date of accident. It is also undisputed that the claimants belong to agricultural family. They did not state in the evidence that they are deriving income by leasing out the land covered under Ex.A-6. When agricultural people hold landed property, it is obvious that they will participate in the cultivation, thereby derives income. Further, nowhere P.W.1 stated that her husband was getting any income other than the agricultural income. In the absence of the deceased as head of the family, certainly the family deprived of the income that was used to earn by the deceased. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased as assessed by the tribunal below, in my view, is quite justified, nevertheless, less in the circumstances of the case. 10. Therefore, viewed from any angle, in the totality of the circumstances, the amount of compensation granted by the tribunal below while assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month does not warrant any interference of the finding of the tribunal below. 11. In the aforesaid circumstances, I see no grounds to interfere with the award of the tribunal below. 12. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned award passed by the tribunal below. No costs. ___________________ K.S.APPA RAO, J. 01st July, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.5243 of 2008 01st July, 2011.