JUDGMENT :

The present appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment and decree dt.15.03.2013 in M.V.O.P No. 2886 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. This is a case of death.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

On 21.08.2011, the deceased Pebbeti Srinu while going to Hyderabad was proceeding on foot to Divis Laboratories, which is located on the southern side of National Highway No.9 and abutting to it, there was Ankireddydugem Bus Stop of Choutuppal Mandal. On either side of the road, there were bushes and trees. Further, the road was being widened on both sides and the same was not observed by the driver of the RTC bus bearing No.AP39Z662 and the said bus driver dashed the deceased from the rear side and as such he fell down and the said bus was coming from Visakhapatnam and being driven by a single driver. He drove the bus for about 1000kms from Visakhapatnam and was dousing hence, the driver could not see the deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained injuries to the head, hands and leg and succumbed to the same. On a report, the Station House Officer, PS Choutuppal registered a case in Cr.No.189 of 2011 under Section 304-A of IPC against the driver of the bus as the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the said APSRTC bus. The deceased P. Srinu was aged 35 years and he used to work as a labourer and earned Rs.7,000/- p.m. He was contributing his income for the maintenance of the family. The claimants filed MVOP before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-.

3. After hearing both sides and basing on the available evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded Rs.6,65,000/- as compensation under several heads. Against the above award, the present appeal is filed and also enhancement petition is filed by the appellants vide IA No. 2 of 2014 seeking enhancement of compensation amount from Rs.7,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/-.

4. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the awarded amount was meagre and the Tribunal ought to have awarded more amount as claimed based on evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 and also Exhibits marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 and as per the Hon’ble Apex Court’s judgment in Nagappa case reported in 2003 (2) SCC 2734 and Rajesh case reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 SC, subject to payment of court fee on the additional amount. He further contended that the Court below erred in accepting the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- instead of Rs.7,000/- p.m. despite the appellants got examined PW-2 who is the employer contractor. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued that there is no proof of income of the deceased and as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramchandrappa, (2011) 13 SCC 236, the Court below rightly fixed the salary of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- p.m. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

7. It is observed from the evidence of PW-2 who is the eyewitness-cum-Labour Contractor, that he categorically deposed that the deceased used to work under him as a labourer in Divis Laboratories Limited and that he was being paid an amount of Rs.7,000/- p.m. The cross-examination of PW-2 did not disprove his evidence. The Court below fixed the salary of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- p.m. but has not considered adding future prospects. As such the loss of dependency was fixed to Rs.6,40,000/-; transport expenses Rs.5,000/-; loss of estate Rs.5,000/-; loss of consortium Rs.10,000/-; funeral expenses Rs.5,000/-, in all, Rs.6,65,000/- was awarded as compensation.

8. Given the evidence on record, circumstances and the lapse in time, this Court is inclined to modify the salary of the deceased from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,500/-. Addition of future