THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO C.M.A.NO.1204 OF 2003 JUDGMENT Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation granted in the order dated 21-12-2002 in W.C.No.31 of 2002 passed by the Commissioner for the Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad-II, as against the claim of Rs.4,00,000/-, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the appellants. 1st appellant is the wife and appellant Nos.2 to 4 are the sons of the deceased-Bantu Jennaiah. Succinctly the facts of the case are as follows: On 18-07-2001, at about 4-00 p.m., the deceased- Bantu Jennaiah and some others were proceeding from Medakpally to Gattu Ippalpally, on a tractor, when it reached Pochamma Kunta, the driver of the tractor drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly applied the brake, as a result of which, the deceased, who sat on the right side of the mudguard of the tractor, fell down and sustained head injury and the tractor also run over the left leg of the deceased who succumbed to the injuries. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the finding of the Court below is erroneous in view of the fact that the income of the deceased was calculated by taking statutory minimum wage instead of admitted wage. He further contended that the compensation awarded by the court below is too meager and that sought for enhancement of compensation. Now the points for consideration are 1. Whether the finding of the Court below is just and reasonable? and 2. Whether the appellants are entitled to any compensation as prayed for? On behalf of the appellants, 1st appellant examined herself examined as PW1 and examined PW2, who is co-worker of the deceased and got marked Ex.A1 to A7. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. It is an admitted fact that the deceased died during the course of his employment and as per the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 the legal representatives of the deceased employee are entitled to compensation. The Court below, while evaluating the evidence of P.W.2, granted compensation. The Court below observed that the deceased died during the course of his employment on 18-07-2001, which was evidenced by Exs.A1 and A2. In the case on hand, no age certificate was filed on behalf of the appellants-claimants besides wage certificate of the deceased. In the absence of any age proof certificate and earning capacity of the deceased, it is very difficult to draw a conclusion to grant compensation either on the quantum side or on the factual side. According to the claimants, the age of the deceased was 27 years, whereas the Court below considered the age of the deceased as 30 years as per Exs.A1 to A3. Ex.A1 is copy of FIR, Ex.A2 is copy of Inquest Panchanama and Ex.A3 is copy of Post-mortem report. These documents clearly goes to show that the age of the deceased was 30 years. In that view of the matter, the finding of the Court below in granting compensation considering the age of the deceased as 30 years, is justified without any iota of doubt. Further, the Court below while taking into consideration the statutory minimum wage as per G.O.Ms.No.30 LET & F (LAB – II) Department, dated 27- 07-2000, along with the prevalent VDA as on the date of accident, fixed the wage of the deceased and arrived at the right conclusion as noted in the impugned order. In view of the aforesaid observations of the Court below, I see no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and the findings as arrived at by the Court below holds good. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the old age parents of the deceased and his minor children, this Court is inclined to enhance the compensation by 20% besides the amount already granted by the Court below. With this modification, the appeal is allowed in part. ________________________ JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO Dated: 11 -2-2011. Rkk/ndr