Aggrieved by the order dated 10-03-2003 passed by the learned District Judge – cum – Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Medak at Sangareddy in O.P. No.39 of 2000, whereby the Tribunal allowed the said O.P. in part awarding an amount of Rs.1,02,100/- towards compensation to the claimants (appellants) as against their claim of Rs.2 lakhs, they preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal is as under:

(a) Claimant No.1 is the husband and claimant Nos.2 to 4 are children of the deceased Smt. Bismillah Bee. On 09-03-1999 at 7-00 PM, while the deceased and her son were going on a scooter, at the village limits of Kaveli, the Vespa (scooter) bearing No.AP9-J-4262 belonging to respondent No.1 and being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came in the opposite direction and hit the scooter of the deceased resulting in fall of the deceased along with the scooterist on the road and both of them sustained severe multiple injuries and they were shifted to Government Hospital, Zaheerabad and from there the deceased was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, where she succumbed to the injuries on 12-03-1999 while undergoing treatment. It is also claimed that the deceased was 40 years old as on the date of her death and she was working as an agricultural labourer and earning Rs.2,500/- per month. Therefore, the claimants filed claim petition claiming a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

(b) Respondents Nos.1 and 2, who are owner of the Vespa (scooter) involved in the accident and its insurer respectively, filed their counters separately, inter alia, denying the case of the claimants and also disputing the age, occupation and income of the deceased and also dependency of the claimants on the deceased.

3. Based on the rival pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

“1. Whether the pleaded accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the LML. Vespa AP-9-J-4262 by its driver or the driver of scooter on which the deceased was traveling or by both and the deceased Bismilla Bee died the said accident?

2. Whether the claim is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

3. What is the just compensation to which the petitioners are entitled and from whom?

4. To what relief?”

4. To prove their case, claimant No.1 got himself examined as PW.1 and also an eyewitness to the accident, Aijaz Ahmed, as PW.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced except marking a copy of the insurance policy of the Vespa (Scooter) involved in the accident as Ex.B-1 with consent.

5. The Tribunal after considering the material available on record, holding issue Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the claimants and taking the income of the deceased at Rs.900/- per month, awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,02,100/-. Being dissatisfied with the said quantum of compensation, claimants preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

6. It is the case of the claimants that during her lifetime, the deceased was working as an agricultural labourer and was earning Rs.2,500/- per month and she was contributing her entire income to her family only apart from attending to household work being a house wife. It is also their case that since the deceased, who was a housewife having family, was rendering her services to the family, which cannot be assessed in terms of money, they are also entitled to compensation under this count. However, the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in a proper perspective and instead of fixing the monthly earnings of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month, erroneously fixed the same at Rs.900/- per month. The Tribunal has also committed an error by deducting 1/3rd out of the total income of the deceased towards her personal expenses instead of deducting only 1/5th of the amount as there being four dependents on her. It is further the