(Per VVSR,J)

1. Oriental Insurance Company Limited is appellant in this miscellaneous appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act, for brevity) against the award dated 09.7.2004 in M.V.O.P.No.20 of 2001 passed by the Court of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Chittoor (hereafter, Tribunal). The appellant obtained necessary permission under Section 170(b) of the Act and filed instant appeal questioning the award insofar as quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned.

2. P.Jyothi Reddy (since deceased) was bachelor. He is son of first respondent and brother of second respondent. Respondents 3 and 4 are daughters of second respondent. Jyothi Reddy statedly was cultivating the land belonging to the family. He was also Proprietor of P.J.Jute Company and Jyothi Granites. On 15.5.2000 at 7.30 am while he was traveling in a car bearing No.AP 03F 990 from Tirupati, lorry bearing No.AP 07V 3721 insured with appellant dashed against the car resulting in instantaneous death of Jyothi Reddy. The other persons travelling in the car received injuries. On a complaint given by one of the travelers, K.Ravi, Police registered a case of negligence against the driver of lorry. After investigation, they filed charge sheet against lorry driver on the file of the Court of III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.

3. The mother, sister and two nieces of Jyothi Reddy instituted petition claiming Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation for the death of Jyothi Reddy. They alleged that Jyothi Reddy aged 30 years was raising mango and coconut saplings in the land and selling them in the market and was getting an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. He was also cultivating paddy and sugarcane and was getting a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. He was also getting Rs.2,00,000/- from coconut trees and had an income of Rs.10,00,000/-. They also alleged that sister of the Jyothi Reddy and her daughters were dependents on him. The owners of the two vehicles did not contest the matter. The appellant alone opposed the claim denying negligence on the part of driver of lorry. It was also pleaded that sister of the deceased and her two daughters are not dependents and that the income of Jyothi Reddy at Rs.10,00,000/- is excessive. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues. The mother of deceased gave evidence as P.W.1. The eye witness to the accident, K.Ravi, gave evidence as P.W.2, to corroborate the negligence on the part of the lorry driver. P.Ws.3 to 5 were examined to prove the income of deceased. Exs.A1 to A18 were also marked. The insurer did not adduce oral or documentary evidence.

4. Placing reliance on the evidence of P.W.2 and also taking into consideration absence of any evidence on behalf of appellant, learned Tribunal recorded finding that driver of the car was not negligent and that the driver of lorry was negligent in causing the accident. Finding that sister of deceased and her daughters are not dependents on deceased, the Tribunal held that they are not entitled to claim compensation. A sum of Rs.11,20,000/- was directed to be paid to mother jointly and severally by the owner and insurer of lorry with interest at 9% per annum. In determining the said compensation, learned Tribunal took into consideration age of the mother and loss of supervisory charges on agriculture at Rs.50,000/- and on industry at Rs.1,00,000/-. An amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and a sum of Rs.2,500/- each towards transportation and funeral expenses were also awarded.

5. In this appeal, learned Counsel for insurance company submits that the Tribunal ought to have deducted half of the income towards personal expenses of deceased and that the amount determined towards agricultural and supervisory charges is erroneous. He also contends that in the absence of any account books and Income Tax returns, it is not safe to determine supervisory loss on industry at Rs.1,00,000/-. He placed reliance on two decisions of thi