LAXMI Vs. ROSHANNA DHANIYALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This miscellaneous first appeal is preferred by the appellants who were the claimants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yadgir in MVC No.192/2017, seeking enhancement of the compensation.

(2.) It is an admitted fact that the deceased Siddarth @ Siddu son of first appellant and brother of second appellant was proceeding towards Hattigudur in his Mahindra Scorpio Jeep bearing registration No.KA- 33/M-5008 on 07.06.2017, while the motor vehicle accident took place. The Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing registration No.AP- 21/X-2838 which belongs to respondent No.1.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the deceased was, infact, a commission agent in the APMC and was running the agency in the name of his mother, who was granted the commission license by the APMC following the death of her husband who was earlier doing the agency of commission. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellants would point out from the list of documents produced before the Tribunal, Exs.P12 and P13 which are the license issued by the APMC and VAT certificate. However, learned counsel for the appellants would concede that the license was in the name of first appellant herein. Therefore, the Tribunal did not accept the contention of the appellants that the deceased was himself the license holder and therefore declined to accept the contention of the appellants that the deceased was infact running the commission agency. The other contention of the appellants that the deceased was infact the owner of about 20 acres of land and he was having agricultural income, was also not accepted by the Tribunal, since there was no documentary proof in that regard. Learned counsel for the appellants points out to Ex.P11 which is the RTC extract. However, as rightly held by the Tribunal, mere production of RTC Extract would not determine the fact that the deceased was having agricultural income.