HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD L.P.A.No.338 of 2001 JUDGMENT (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Durga Prasad): This appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patents against the judgment in A.A.O.No.634 of 1994, by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 19-09-2000. The appellant herein is the A.P.S.R.T.C. Respondents herein are claimants and they have filed petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act in O.P.No.831 of 1989, dated 20-03-1993,on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’) seeking compensation for the death of Rapolu Suryanarayana (herein in referred to as ‘the deceased’), son of respondents 1 and 2 and brother of 3rd respondent, in a motor vehicle accident. The brief facts of the case are that the deceased died in the accident occurred on 14-09-1989, while he was proceeding on the left side of the road, an R.T.C. bus came in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against him, due to which the deceased died on the spot. The appellants herein by filing counter before the Tribunal denying the averments made in the petition and also denied the compensation payable to the claimants. The Tribunal by taking into consideration the evidence produced before it fixed the dependence on the deceased at Rs.700/- per month and awarded compensation of RS.55,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants have filed the C.M.A.No.634 of 1994 and the learned Single Judge by taking into consideration of the age, and by taking into consideration the earnings of the deceased as Rs.1500/- per month, arrived contribution to the claimants at Rs.1,000/- per month and taking into consideration the age of the deceased applied multiplier ‘13’ and arrived at a loss of dependency at Rs.1,56,000/- (1000 X 12 X 13). However, as the claimants claimed Rs.1,30,000/- as compensation, he awarded the same. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company questioning about the contribution of the deceased towards the claimants and also taking multiplier for the age of the 2nd claimant. The learned Single Judge has rightly taken into consideration that the deceased was earning Rs.1,500/- per month, even though the claimants have claimed his earnings as Rs.2000/- p.m., and deducting 1/3rd, arrived at Rs.1000/- p.m. as contribution to the family, and by taking the age of the mother as 44 years, and applied multiplier ‘13’ and awarded the compensation. Thus, the learned Single Judge has rightly appreciated the dependency and the multiplier i.e. applicable to the facts of the case and it does not warrant any interference by this Court and there is no substantial question of aw involved in the present appeal, to disturb the filing of the learned Single Judge. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO Date: 31st January 2011 Kvr _________________________ JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD