JUDGMENT :

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the claimants preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2011 in M.V. O.P. No.590 of 2010 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Srikakulam (for short ‘the tribunal’), Srikakulam, wherein the tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.3,70,000/- with interest at 9% per annum and costs payable by the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally.

2. For convenience sake, the parties will be hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed in M.V.O.P.

3. The claimants filed M.V.O.P. claiming compensation under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Section 455 of A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- against the respondents, for the death of Nageswara Rao, who is the husband of the 1st claimant, father of claimants 2 and 3 and the son of claimants 4 and 5, in a road accident that occurred on 14.07.2009 while the said Nageswara Rao was riding the motor cycle bearing No.AP 30 H 5275 on which two girls were sitting as pillion riders, at 3.30 PM when he reached the outskirts of Ichapuram, a tanker lorry bearing No.NL 01/D 4416 came in opposite direction and dashed against the motor cycle, as a result he fell down and sustained multiple injuries, then he was admitted in Government Hospital, Ichapuram and later he was referred MKCG Hospital, Berhampur, on the same day he died in the hospital.

4. Respondent No.1, who is the owner of the tanker lorry, remained exparte and the respondent No.2, who is the insurer of the tanker lorry has filed written statement contending that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle by the deceased, who suddenly came to the middle of the road and there no negligence on the part of the driver of the tanker lorry.

5. The tribunal, on considering the evidence on record, awarded an amount of Rs.3,70,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum payable by the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally.

6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the claimants and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.

7. The 2nd respondent has not aggrieved with the judgment passed by the tribunal and therefore, this Court need not go into other aspects of the case except the issue of enhancement of compensation awarded by the tribunal.

8. Now the points for considerations are,

1. Whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just in the facts and circumstances of the case and it requires enhancement?

2. If so, what extent?

POINT No.1:

9. The relationship of the claimants with the deceased as claimed in the petition is not disputed. Before the tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, the 1st claimant herself got examined as P.W.1, the pillion rider was examined as P.W.2 to prove the accident in question and also to prove about the death of the deceased in the accident got marked Exs.A.1 to A.7. On behalf of the respondents, no evidence was let in.

10. By taking into consideration of Ex.A.1-F.I.R. and Ex.A.2-charge sheet, the tribunal came to the conclusion that due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle the accident happened. The claimants have contended that the deceased was doing mason work and used to earn an amount of Rs.4,500/- per month. The 2nd respondent has not disputed the occupation of the deceased. However, as rightly observed by the tribunal, no evidence is placed on record in support of the earnings of deceased.

11. In Lakshmi Devi and others vs. Mohhammad Tabber, 2008 ACJ 1488, the Apex Court has laid down a principle that, in today’s world, even a common labour can very easily earn Rs.100/- per day. In view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court, the tribunal ought not to have assessed the annual income @ Rs.25,000/- per annum. As such this Court is inclined to consider the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3