THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.2255 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nizamabad, in O.P.No.1051/99. Petitioners - Claimants are the appellants, who are the parents and brother of the deceased, who was said to be working as a painter. 2. Heard. 3. The case of the petitioners is as follows: On 02.10.1999 at about 5.00 p.m. the deceased was traveling in an auto bearing No. AP-25-T-6941 from Domakonda towards Kamareddy and when the auto reached near Co.operative Society, Jangampally village, a car bearing No.AAZ 7551 came from opposite direction in high speed and dashed the auto, on account of that the deceased sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Kamareddy, thereafter referred to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, where he died on 09.10.1999. He was aged 22 years and earning Rs.10,000/- per month as an agriculturist and by doing painting works. The petitioners claimed compensation of Rs.5.00 lakhs. First respondent remained exparte and the second respondent filed counter denying the allegations of the petition. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the Ambassador car bearing No.AAZ 7551 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation. If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 4. On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. On the basis of the material on record, the Court below granted compensation of Rs.2,21,200/-. 5. Now, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the income of the deceased fixed at Rs.60/- a day by the court below is inadequate and that nothing was added towards future enhancement of his income. Thus, the petitioners were entitled to the total compensation claimed. 6. The trial Court found that there was no authentic evidence with regard to the income of the deceased. The claim of P.W.1, the father of the deceased is that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month as a painter, which is an obvious exaggeration and rightly disbelieved by the trial Court. It is impossible to believe that in 1999, the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month as a painter in Nizamabad District. The income at Rs.60/- a day recorded by the trial Court is most appropriate. However, it has to be noted that nothing was added towards enhancement of future earnings. Further more, as per latest legal position, in case of unmarried persons, 50% of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses instead of 1/3rd as has been done in this case. If, 50% is deducted towards personal maintenance, the petitioners would get further lesser compensation. However, in case any amount was added towards enhancement of future earnings and 50% was deducted instead of 1/3rd also the petitioners would get lesser amount than the amount awarded by the court below. Thus, the total compensation awarded at Rs.2,21,200/- cannot be said to be inadequate. 7. In the circumstances, I see no merits in this appeal and there are no grounds to further enhance the compensation and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, C.M.A. is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 15th November 2010, Rns