THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.P.No. 17000 of 2003 and / in M.A.C.M.A.No. 1267 of 2011 JUDGMENT: Since the 1st respondent remained ex parte in the lower Court, notice is dispensed with. The petition for condonation of delay in C.M.P.No.17000 of 2003 is allowed. Admit the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Heard. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the claimants questioning the quantum of compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Chittoor in M.V.O.P.No.198 of 1998. The deceased Manju was a cleaner on a tempo and the petitioners 1 and 2 are the parents and 3rd petitioner is the sister of the deceased. He died in a motor accident on 17.08.1997 while traveling from Erode to Coimbatore. The police have registered the case and investigated it and a charge sheet filed that two vehicles have colluded and the claim was made against the tempo in which the deceased was employed and also the offending lorry, which was involved in the accident. After appearance of the insurance company, they have filed separate counters disputing their liabilities and also the nature of the incident and quantum of damages. On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 3 are examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-7. On behalf of the respondents no evidence is adduced. After considering the evidence on record, the lower Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs.94,500/- and out of it 50% is held payable by respondents 1 and 2 and 50% payable by respondents 3 and 4. The respondents have not preferred any appeal questioning their liability. The petitioners claim is that the earning capacity of the deceased was more and the compensation granted is less. The point for consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled for any enhancement of the compensation? POINT: From the evidence on record, there is no dispute about the death of the deceased in a motor accident when he was in employment as a cleaner on the tempo. The insurance of the vehicles is also not disputed. The deceased was, evidently, unmarried. The lower Tribunal has taken into consideration the evidence of the mother and also other witness P.W.3, who themselves have stated that the deceased was earning Rs.750/- per month. In fact, there is no other evidence to show that the deceased was earning Rs.1,000/- per month. Even if the claim of the petitioners that the deceased was earning Rs.1,000/- is to be taken as true, if correct legal position is taken into consideration, his contribution to the family being unmarried comes to Rs.500/- only, which was also the quantum fixed by the lower Tribunal. Therefore, the evidence of the income if any pleaded by the petitioners will not in any way alter the award of the lower Tribunal. But, however, as can be seen from the award of the lower Tribunal no non-pecuniary damages are granted except to a tune of Rs.2,500/- as loss of estate. But generally the Courts or Tribunals are granting a sum of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages in cases of death. Therefore, taking into consideration the above fact, I feel the ends of justice would meet if a further sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) is granted as compensation to the claimants. Accordingly, the compensation is enhanced by Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) payable as per the decree of the lower Tribunal proportionately. Therefore, the appeal is partly allowed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 29-06-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.P.No. 17000 of 2003 and / in M.A.C.M.A.No. 1267 of 2011 DATE: 29-06-2011 MR