THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3711 of 2003 Date: 30.09.2010 Between: Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Ashok Nagar, Miryalaguda. … Appellant and Md. Sajjad Ali and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3711 of 2003 ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard both sides. 2. Aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 23.9.2002, in O.P.No.798 of 1999, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Additional District Judge) Nalgonda (for brevity “the Tribunal”), awarding a sum of Rs.2,88,960/- as against the claim of Rs.5,50,000/- made by respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein/claimants for the death of the deceased-Sadiq Ali, who died in a motor accident that occurred on 20.8.1999 at 8-30 p.m., near Sub-Station, Nalgonda, due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the scooter, bearing No.AP 24C 6405, belonging to the 6th respondent herein, the present civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the appellant-insurer. 3. The particulars regarding the method and the manner in which the accident took place are not referred to since not in dispute. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, awarded a sum of Rs.2,88,960/- towards compensation on all counts. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the appellant-insurer. 4. The only contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal had erroneously applied the multiplier ‘11’ having taken into account the age of the mother of the deceased as 50 years, since the deceased was unmarried. 5. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is proper and justified. 6. It is on record that the deceased was a bachelor as on the date of accident. Therefore, the age of the mother of the deceased, who is aged 50 years, was taken into consideration. Accordingly, the Tribunal had rightly applied the multiplier ‘11’ for the age group of 50 years, for assessing the quantum of compensation. As regards the other aspects regarding the contribution of annual income etc., of the deceased, there is no dispute. 7. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or irrationality in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court. 8. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 30.09.2010. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3711 of 2003 30.09.2010 (Msr)