THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.P.No. 18453 of 2003 and / in M.A.C.M.A. No. 1266 of 2011 JUDGMENT: Since the 6th respondent remained ex parte in the lower Court, notice to the 6th respondent is dispensed with. The petition for condonation of delay in C.M.P.No.18453 of 2003 is allowed. Admit the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Heard. The claim under appeal arises consequent on the death of the deceased Gundlapally Malla Reddy on 12.10.1999 in a motor accident involving the jeep bearing No.AP 10 K 4698, which came in opposite direction and dashed against him. The petitioners are his legal representatives and claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.4,000/- per month and claimed compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. The 1st respondent remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent claimed that the incident was due to the fault of the deceased and there was no proper license for the driver to drive the vehicle and there is violation of the conditions of the license and, therefore, the respondent is not liable to pay the same. On behalf of the petitioners P.W.1 was examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-5 and on behalf of the respondents no oral or documentary evidence is adduced. After considering the evidence on record, the lower Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.1,61,000/- with interest at 9% per annum. The point for consideration is whether there are any grounds to interfere with the findings of the lower Tribunal? POINT: Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the quantum of income arrived at by the lower Tribunal is not correct and there is no proof that the deceased was having agricultural lands and consequential addition of Rs.7,000/- as income of the deceased can be taken into consideration. Evidently, even for a labourer the minimum income being fixed by the Courts is Rs.1,500/- per month and annual income comes to Rs.18,000/-. It is not in dispute that after deducting the one-third the annual income contribution comes to Rs.12,000/-. But, however, in this case, the lower Tribunal has applied the multiplier ‘7.68’. If the income of the deceased is taken as less than 40% then the structural formulae under Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act has to be applied and consequently a higher multiplier will be applied and by application of such a multiplier there will not be any big variation in the compensation determined by the lower Tribunal. Therefore, I do not find any strength in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. Therefore, the order of the lower Tribunal does not call for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 29-06-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.P.No. 18453 of 2003 and / in M.A.C.M.A. No. 1266 of 2011 DATE: 29-06-2011 MR