THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU C.M.A. No. 4542 OF 2003 and Cross-Objections JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against order and decree made in O.P. No. 752 of 1997 dated 23.7.2003 on the file of learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge at Ranga Reddy District, whereunder the claim of respondents-petitioners was allowed and an amount of Rs.6,78,800/- was granted towards compensation. Now, 2nd respondent in the O.P. filed the present appeal on the ground that a particular document under Ex.A-9 could not have been taken into consideration for the purpose of deciding the quantum. Heard both sides. May be, what the learned counsel for the appellant says is true, but the fact remains that no application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed before the Tribunal. However, learned counsel for the appellant has very carefully put it before the Court saying that though he is not entitled to question the negligence as well as the quantum of compensation in view of the fact that application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act was not filed before the Court, his only objection is as to the reliance placed by the Tribunal on Ex.A-9. However, on a perusal of the material available on record, it is found that Ex.A-9 is nothing but Income Tax Return for the year 1997- 98 and it is only one of the documents for the purpose of deciding the quantum. Therefore, even this aspect cannot be allowed to be canvassed by the appellant since no application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed before the Tribunal. On this ground alone, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. As far as the cross-objections are concerned, it is the case of the cross-objectors that the deceased was earning Rs.44,650/- per annum and his share income from M/s. Krishi Constructions was Rs.11,750/-, which was exempted from income tax. Thus, the total income of the deceased during the year 1996-97 was Rs.56,403/-. He was aged 32 years as on the date of his death, but instead of applying the multiplier 16, multiplier 14.81 was applied by the Tribunal. Therefore, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is required to be enhanced. The Tribunal has elaborately discussed the aspect as to quantum of compensation. Though the petitioners claimed that the deceased was getting income from agriculture, in view of the fact that there was no evidence on record except the Xerox copies of title pass book which show the name of the father of the deceased, the Tribunal has rightly not taken into consideration any amount as income from agriculture. Having regard to the fact that in Ex.A-3 inquest report the age of the deceased was mentioned as 32 years, the Tribunal applied multiplier 14.81, following the decision in Bhagwandas v. Md. Arif (AIR 1988 AP 99). The amount awarded under various other heads also is quite reasonable and needs no interference by this Court. The Cross- Objections are devoid of any merit and they are liable to be dismissed. Both the C.M.A. and the Cross-Objections are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 30-3-2010. MVB.