HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.1007 OF 2001 Dated: 18.03.2010 BETWEEN: Mahamoodunnisa and others .. Appellants And S.Sanker Reddy and another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.1007 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimants against the order, dated 06.01.1998 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Jude, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.P.No.845 of 1995. 2. The claimants before the Tribunal preferred this appeal on the ground that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate and requires enhancement. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent – insurance company. 4. The deceased Syed Shabuddin died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 07.07.1995 at about 5.00 PM while he was going on cycle and a lorry bearing No.AP 31 T 1611 belonging to the first respondent insured with the second respondent dashed him. The deceased was aged 33 years on the date of his death and was unmarried. The first claimant, mother of the deceased (since died represented by the other legal representatives) was aged 55 years. The Tribunal considered the income of the deceased, who was working as Lab Assistant in Deccan College of Engineering drawing salary of Rs.1,232/- per month as mentioned in Ex.A.8-salary certificate and his annual income comes to Rs.14,784/-. Therefore, after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal and living expenses and applying appropriate multiplier “11” to the age of the mother, the Tribunal below awarded compensation of Rs.1,23,400/- under various heads as indicated in the award. 5. The contention urged by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the other income of the deceased which he was getting as a partner in Limca Associates and by doing tailoring work. With regard to this contention, it may be noticed that absolutely there is no pleading before the Tribunal and there was no oral evidence of PWs.2 and 3. Thus, the Tribunal below rightly refused to consider the income of the deceased on other source. Since the deceased was unmarried and one of the dependants at the time of filing of the claim petition is the mother, who is the first appellant, the Tribunal rightly selected the relevant multiplier as per the age of the mother of the deceased. The other appellants, who are brothers and sisters are all majors on the date of filing of the claim petition. Therefore, there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and I absolutely see no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs. _______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Dated: 18.03.2010 Kvrm