ORDER : 1. The appellants are claim petitioners and the respondents are respondents in M.V.O.P. No. 569 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Guntur. 2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application. 3. The claim petitioners filed a claim petition under Sections 140, 141 and 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.11,00,000/- towards compensation for the death of Kajjam Venkateswarlu in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 05.08.2006. 4. The brief averments of the claim petition are as follows: On 05.08.2006 at about 6.00 p.m. while the deceased Venkateswarlu was riding his scooter bearing registration No. AP 7B 1209 from Anumula to Halia, a lorry bearing registration No. AP 27V 4554 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed without following traffic rules, came and hit the scooter from backside, as a result, the deceased sustained severe head injury and multiple injuries and while undergoing treatment, succumbed to injuries on 12.09.2006. The 1st respondent is owner and the 2nd respondent is insurer of the offending vehicle. Hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. 5. The 1st respondent was set ex-parte. 6. The 2nd respondent filed a written statement by denying the manner of accident. It is contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry at the time of accident and the offending vehicle was not insured with the 2nd respondent/Insurance company and the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. 7. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to the use of the motor vehicle bearing No. AP 37V 4554, if so, Kajjam Venkateswarlu received injuries in the said accident and died due to those injuries? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? 3. Whether the respondents are liable to pay compensation, if any the petitioners are entitled? 8. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 and Ex.X.1 were marked. 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? 3. Whether the respondents are liable to pay compensation, if any the petitioners are entitled? 8. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 and Ex.X.1 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 9. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal allowed the petition in part and awarded a sum of Rs.1,42,000/- towards compensation to the claim petitioners. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the claim petitioners filed the appeal for enhancement of compensation. 10. Heard learned counsels for both the parties. 11. The grounds urged by the appellants/claim petitioners are that the Tribunal erred in fixing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- instead of assessing his own income basing on the evidence and failed to consider Ex.A.6-a bunch of medical bills. 12. Now, the points for determination are: (1) Whether the claim petitioners are entitled enhancement of compensation as prayed for? (2) Whether the order passed by the Tribunal needs any interference? 13. POINT Nos. 1 and 2: On considering the evidence of PW-2 and on considering Ex.A.1-certified copy of first information report and Ex.A.2-certified copy of charge sheet, the Tribunal gave a finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry only and the lorry driver drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and hit the scooter of the deceased and due to the said accident, the petitioner sustained severe injuries. The petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. No appeal was filed by the respondents against the said finding. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal. 14. As per the contents of the petition, the deceased was aged about 70 years as on the date of accident. But, the petitioners failed to produce any documentary proof in support of the age of the deceased. However, as per Ex.A.3-certified copy of post-mortem report and Ex.A.4-certified copy of inquest report, the Tribunal took the age of the deceased as 80 years. But, the petitioners failed to produce any documentary proof in support of the age of the deceased. However, as per Ex.A.3-certified copy of post-mortem report and Ex.A.4-certified copy of inquest report, the Tribunal took the age of the deceased as 80 years. Since the accident occurred in the year 2006 and on considering the age of the deceased, the learned Tribunal fixed the monthly earnings of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- and the annual income is arrived at Rs.36,000/-. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased in view of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the annual contribution to the family is arrived at Rs.24,000/- (Rs.36,000/- - Rs.12,000/-). As stated above, the age of the deceased is 80 years. Therefore, the multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is “5.” So, the loss of dependency is arrived at Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.24,000/- x 5). The Tribunal also awarded Rs.2,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium to the 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner is wife and the 2nd petitioner is major son of the deceased. The Tribunal rightly held that the 1st petitioner is dependent on the deceased and the 2nd petitioner, who is aged 38 years by the date of claim petition, is not dependent on the deceased by applying the principle laid down by the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Dilip Kumar Moses vs. V.J. Cyrice, 2002 (6) ALD 127 and Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Guntur vs. P. Sathyavathamma, 2010 (3) ALD 222 . Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. 15. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses. It is mainly contended by the claim petitioners that the Tribunal failed to consider the evidence on record with regard to medical bills. Learned counsel for the claim petitioners relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 362 and ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited vs. Sunil Kumar, 2015 SCC Online P&H 9490. But, in the instant case, no doubt, the medical bills were marked as Ex.A.6. But for the reasons best known to the claim petitioners, they did not choose to examine the doctor who issued Ex.A.6-bunch of medical bills. But, in the instant case, no doubt, the medical bills were marked as Ex.A.6. But for the reasons best known to the claim petitioners, they did not choose to examine the doctor who issued Ex.A.6-bunch of medical bills. They also did not confront Ex.A.6-medical bills through PW-3 who was examined as a witness before the Tribunal. No doubt, PW-3 is not the concerned doctor. At least, the petitioners ought to have taken care to confront Ex.A.6-medical bills through PW-3. That was not done by the claim petitioners. On a perusal of Ex.A.6- medical bills, this Court opines that the amount of Rs.15,000/- awarded towards medical expenses is very low. Therefore, the said amount is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. In total, the claim petitioners are entitled compensation of Rs.1,77,000/- (Rs.1,42,000/- + Rs.35,000/-). 16. It is the case of the petitioners that the offending vehicle of the 1st respondent was insured with the 2nd respondent/Insurance company and by the date of the accident, the policy was subsisting. Though the 2nd respondent contended that the lorry was not insured with it and the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid driving licence, the 2nd respondent failed to establish the same. The Tribunal rightly held that the 1st respondent being the insured and the 2nd respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation, as the policy was subsisting as on the date of accident. Therefore, the said finding recorded by the Tribunal warrants no interference by this Court. 17. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,42,000/- to Rs.1,77,000/- and the 1st petitioner is entitled enhanced compensation of Rs.35,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment by both the respondents. Both the respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.35,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. before the Tribunal within two months from the date of the judgment. On such deposit, the 1st petitioner is entitled to withdraw the said amount along with interest. No order as to costs. 18. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeals shall stand closed.