IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.A.No.476 OF 2001 Between:- Miryala Seetha Mahalaxmi and others. …Appellants A n d T.D.Varma and another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.A.No.476 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 21-12-2000 in W.C.No.7 of 2000, on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Ongole, wherein the claim of respondents 1 to 4 herein was allowed-in-part, awarding compensation of Rs.70,458/-. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 3. The finding of the learned Commissioner that the deceased was workman and that he died in the accident, which occurred in the course of employment as a workman, is not disputed. The applicants filed the present appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that the learned Commissioner ought to have taken into consideration the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. The deceased was working as a driver. The learned Commissioner has taken G.O.Ms.No.71 dated 13-06-1991 into consideration, whereunder Minimum Wages to the category of driver in Public Motor Transport was fixed at Rs.1,215/- and by adding the VDA of Rs.513/-, the total wages came to Rs.1,728/-. The learned Commissioner has rightly restricted the wages to Rs.1,000/-, as per Explanation II to Section 4(b) of the Act which was in force as on the date of the accident i.e., 15-12-1994. It is not disputed that the multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased is ‘175.54’ and only 40% of the wages have to be taken into consideration in the case of death as per the then existing provision in the statute. Thus, by applying the multiplying factor ‘175.54’ to the amount of Rs.400/- (being 40% of Rs.1,000/-), the learned Commissioner arrived at the compensation of Rs.70,216/-, which is in accordance with law. There are absolutely no valid or justifiable grounds for enhancement of the compensation, as the amount fixed by the learned Commissioner is in accordance with the then existing law. 4. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 24th November, 2009. Lrkm.