THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No. 1258 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The 2nd respondent, which is the Insurance Company in O.P.No.831 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, is the appellant herein. The application was filed for grant of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- by the parents consequent on the death of the deceased Mallepaula Dattu in a motor accident on 18.04.2000. The appellant herein contended that the earning capacity of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- is not proper and the accident was occurred due to the fault of the deceased and, therefore, there is no liability. On consideration of the material on record, the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderbad fixed the earning capacity of the deceased, who was a barber, at Rs.1,500/- per month and after one-third deduction Rs.12,000/- was taken as income per annum and applied the multiplier ‘13’ and consequently granted a compensation of Rs.1,59,500/- . Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the age of the mother is taken as ‘46’, which is not correct and she is aged more. But, however, the age of the deceased was said to be ‘23’ and the lower Court after giving allowance to a claim of lesser age fixed the age at 46 and granted the compensation. There is no other material to come to the conclusion that the age of the mother fixed by the learned V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad is incorrect. Therefore, I do not find any error in fixing the age of the mother and taking into consideration the same for fixing of the compensation. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that if the age of the mother is to be taken as 46, then by applying the decision in the case of BHAGAWAN DAS v. MOHD. ARIF[1] case multiplier will be ’10.47’ and the application of the multiplier ‘13’ is not correct. It is to be noted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SARLA VERMA (SMT) AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[2], has fixed the particulars of the multiplier to be applied in cases of death considering all the contentions on this aspect. From the table, the multiplier for persons aged about 45 comes to ‘14’. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the multiplier applied by the lower Court is less than the multiplier permitted to be applied by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and, therefore, the order of the lower Court does not call for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 07-07-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No. 1258 of 2011 DATE: 07-07-2011 MR [1] 1987 (2) ALT 137 [2] (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121