THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD L.P.A.No.360 of 2001 JUDGMENT: (per P.DURGA PRASAD,J) This appeal is filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge in C.M.A.No.1649 of 1995 dated 21.11.2000. The said C.M.A. was filed by the respondents/claimants against the order dated 28.12.1993 in O.P.No.280 of 1989 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-III Additional District Judge, Kakinada. The appellant-Corporation is the second respondent in the said O.P. filed by the claimants for grant of compensation for the death of Kadiyala Nookalu who is their father. The brief averments are that on 28.07.1989, when the deceased was coming from NH-5 road side to Tuni market at about 10.45 A.M. and when he reached the railway gate at Apparao Centre, Tuni, one R.T.C. bus bearing No. AEZ 3439 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from behind with high speed without blowing horn and dashed against the deceased, as a result of the same, the deceased died instantaneously. The claimants have filed the O.P. before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under various heads. The respondents therein opposed the petition pleading that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the R.T.C. bus in view of the fact that the vehicle was driven at a speed of 10 to 15 kilometers. The Tribunal basing on the evidence led before it through PWs 1 and 2 and Ex.A1 came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver and granted compensation of Rs.25,000/- under no fault liability. Regarding the earnings of the deceased, the Tribunal was of the opinion that even if the deceased was an agricultural coolie his earnings would be Rs.20/- per day and his monthly earnings would be Rs.600/- and after deducting 1/3rd of the amount towards his personal expenses, the monthly contribution of the deceased towards his family was taken as Rs.400/- per month and as the deceased was aged between 50 and 55 years as per Ex.A1, the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier 6 and came to the conclusion that the compensation to be awarded is Rs.28,800/- towards loss of earnings. But, however, the Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- under no fault. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants have filed the appeal before the learned single Judge for enhancement of compensation and the learned single judge by taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the claimants and the findings given by the learned Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the monthly contribution of the deceased towards his family as Rs.400/- per month and adopted multiplier of 12 instead of 6 and awarded compensation of Rs.57,600/-, in addition awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium and the total compensation awarded by the learned single judge was Rs.72,600/-. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned single judge, the appellant-corporation filed the present appeal questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned single judge on the ground that multiplier that has to be applied is 10 instead of 12 as the deceased was aged about 55 years. As per the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, the deceased was aged about 45 years as on the date of the accident. Therefore, the learned single judge applied multiplier 12 instead of 6 while awarding compensation of Rs.57,600/- towards loss of earnings and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium and there is nothing to interfere with the said finding of the learned single Judge and no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal and the appeal is dismissed. No costs. B.PRAKASH RAO,J P.DURGA PRASAD,J Dt. 01.02.2011 lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD L.P.A.No.360 of 2001 (per PDP,J) Dt. 01.02.2011