THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.NOS.3285 OF 2011 JUDGMENT:- The appeal is ﬁled by the claimants in O.P.No.955 of 2003 on the ﬁle of the court of XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. A claim for compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- was ﬁled consequent on the death of deceased-Chandraiah in a motor accident that occurred on 20-02-2003. On the said date, when the deceased was waiting near the Chevella Bus stand, one bus bearing No.AP 9Z 8360 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came and hit against the deceased, as a result of which the deceased succumbed to injures. The deceased was said to be an agricultural labourer and earning Rs.3,000/- per month and was aged about 50 years. The respondents have denied the liability. After considering the evidence on record, the lower Tribunal has accepted the cause of accident, death and granted a compensation of Rs.2,17,000/-. Now the point that arises for consideration is:- Whether the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is just and equitable? POINT:- So far as the nature of the incident and liability of the respondents are concerned, there is not of much dispute and no appeal has also been ﬁled. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the lower Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month which is on lower side and the income should have been ﬁxed at Rs.3,000/- per month. It is also his contention that the multiplier applied is not correct. Evidently, the deceased was not holding any other property and he is said to be an agricultural labourer and the incident was happened in 2003 and, therefore, taking into consideration the above fact the lower Tribunal has taken a reasonable view in ﬁxing the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and consequently deducted 1/3rd. So also with regard to the age of the deceased is concerned, there is a variation from the claim and also from the P.M report. There is no particular proof of the age, but, however the Tribunal was of the opinion that the deceased was aged above ‘50’ and has taken the age as ‘52.5’. The petitioners themselves have claimed the age of the deceased as ‘50’. Even if it is to be an error, it can never be on a higher side and the claim of the petitioners cannot be an error on the lower side of age and the multiplier for the deceased person, who is aged above 50, is deﬁnitely “11” and consequently the application of the multiplier also cannot be faulted. The Tribunal has given the reasonably high amount of compensation for loss of estate, consortium and interest. There are absolutely no reasons to interfere with the award and, accordingly, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed. No costs. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 07-12-2011 TSNR