THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.648 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 29.02.2008, in W.C.No.246 of 2005(F) on the file of the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation and the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nalgonda, wherein the claim of the appellants herein, was allowed in part, awarding compensation of Rs.3,39,496/-. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. 1st appellant is the wife and the 2nd appellant is the son of the deceased–workman-Pallepati Nagireddy, who was under employment of the 1st respondent herein as driver of Swaraj Mazda bearing No.AP-24-U-7917. It is not disputed that the deceased died in the course of the employment on account of the accident that occurred on 07.04.2005 while he was in duty as driver of the said vehicle. 4 During enquiry before the learned Commissioner, A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked on behalf of the applicant. No oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1-copy of the policy was marked on behalf of the respondents. 5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned Commissioner has estimated the compensation at Rs.3,39,496/- and passed an award accordingly. Not satisfied with the same, claimant preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement. 6. The only ground urged in the appeal is that the learned Commissioner erred in taking the salary at Rs.3154/- per month though the claimant is earning Rs.6000/- per month besides batta of Rs.100/- per day. Claimant has not adduced any evidence, oral or documentary, in support of the said claim of salary of the deceased. In the absence of any such evidence, the learned Commissioner has rightly taken the minimum wages prescribed under the G.O. into consideration at Rs.3154/- per month and based thereon arrived at the loss of dependency of Rs.3,39,496/- applying the suitable multiplying factor of 21.28 as the deceased was aged 26 years. There is no dispute regarding the age of the deceased or the multiplying factor applied by the learned Commissioner. 7. In the circumstances, the amount awarded by the learned Commissioner is held to be just and reasonable and the same does not call for any en enhancement. 8. In the result, appeal is dismissed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 12th October, 2011 Tsy