THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2783 of 2003 AND CROSS-OBJECTIONS (SR).No.81548 of 2003 ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT: Heard both sides. Aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 26.04.2002, passed by the Additional District Judge-cum- Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nizamabad (for brevity “the Tribunal”), in O.P.No.836 of 1996, awarding a sum of Rs.2,46,000/- towards compensation for the death of one M.Sudershan, in a road accident that occurred on 28.03.1996, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, while the claimants have filed cross-objections, seeking enhancement. The particulars of the accident i.e., the method and manner in which it occurred and the aspect of negligence etc., are not in dispute and hence, they are not referred to. The only question that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether the compensation arrived at by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? Learned Standing counsel appearing for the appellant-insurer contended that the first claimant-father of the deceased was a pensioner and as such, he was not a dependent on the deceased; that the second claimant-the elder brother of the deceased was aged about 30 years and he is also not dependent on the deceased. He further contended that Tribunal erred in not taking note of the same and hence, prayed that the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants be reduced to that extent. The deceased was aged of 25 years as on the date of the accident. Unfortunately, the said contentions raised on behalf the appellant-insurance company, in this appeal, have neither been taken before the Tribunal nor any evidence, either oral or documentary, was adduced in this regard. In the absence of any such evidence on record, the Tribunal had no other option except to believe the version of the claimants that they were the dependants of the deceased. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the assumption made by the Tribunal in awarding the compensation to the claimants. Hence, there is no reason for this Court to interfere with the impugned order. In the result, both the appeal and the Cross- Objections are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 12th August 2010 dr