IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN :PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. S. APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.144 OF 2008 Between: B. Ramachandra and others ..... APPELLANTS AND K. Venkatesulu and others .…. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 20-04-2007 passed in O.P.No.357 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Anantapur, present M.A.C.M.A. is filed by the appellants- petitioners mainly urging that the lower Court ought to have seen that the deceased is doing coolie work and earning Rs.3,000/- per month and that the multiplier applied by the lower Court is erroneous. Now the point for consideration is whether the appellants- claimants are entitled for any enhancement of compensation. POINT:- The accident was not in dispute. The only point for determination is whether the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month as coolie. In proof of earnings of the deceased except the evidence of PW-1-first petitioner, who is son of the deceased, none others were examined and no documentary evidence was produced. Even the alleged PW-2, who was traveling along with deceased, also did not state anything in the chief-examination about the earnings of the deceased. Admittedly, PW-1 i.e., the first petitioner is not dependent and he is the earning member in the family. The other petitioners were also married and there is no evidence that they are dependents on the income of the deceased. The lower Court while evaluating the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the petitioners are not the dependents on the income of the deceased. The finding of the lower Court mainly based on the decision reported in 2006(2) ALD 409 in case of N. BALAIAH AND OTHERS v. K. VENUGOPAL AND OTHERS and another decision reported in 2000 (3) ACJ. 1757 in a case between LALITHA AND OTHERS v. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHERS. As seen from the impugned order, the lower Court applied the facts of the instant case on hand to the facts in the aforesaid two decisions and came to the conclusion that the petitioners are seized to be dependents of the deceased under the head of loss of dependency. No doubt, the deceased is a widow and these petitioners are the children of the deceased. Since the petitioners did not adduce any evidence on the income of the deceased the lower Court while applying the dictum in the aforesaid decision granted Rs.27,000/- towards compensation. Having regard to the circumstances and evidence on record and while taking into consideration the relationship of the deceased with the petitioners it is justified to enhance the further compensation. Therefore, by applying the principle of no fault liability, an amount of Rs.50,000/- is awarded by enhancing the compensation of Rs.27,000/- granted by the lower Court under the said head and the enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum. In view of the above modification, the appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ K.S. APPA RAO, J March 14, 2011 Pn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. S. APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.144 OF 2008 March 14, 2011