THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A No. 1172 of 2007 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the order dated 05.10.2006 passed in O.P.No.108 of 2003 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur. 2. The said O.P was filed by the claimants/respondents herein claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of one Sudhakar in the Motor Accident that occurred on 19.12.2002 involving jeep bearing registration No. AP 3 U 4450. The claimants/respondents herein are parents, brother and minor sisters of the deceased Sudhakar. As against the claim of Rs.4,00,000/-, the Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. Questioning the same, the 2nd respondent- Insurance Company in the O.P filed this appeal. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and the learned counsel for the claimants-respondents herein. Perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 4. It has come in the evidence that the jeep in question coming in the opposite direction in rash and negligent manner dashed the auto in which the deceased was driving. The Tribunal considering the evidence of P.W.1 who is the mother of the deceased and who spoken as to the accident, age, occupation and income of the deceased. P.W.2 spoken as to the manner in which accident occurred. It has come in the evidence of P.W.2 that on the fateful day when he was travelling along with the deceased in the auto, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep in question by its driver. Considering this evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep in question by its driver, which in the facts and circumstances of the case does not warrant any interference by this Court. 5. Coming to the question of granting compensation, as on date of the accident, the deceased was 19 years old and was doing fruit business and earning Rs.5,000/- per month, but since there was no positive evidence to that effect, the Tribunal took the income on an average of Rs.1,250/- per month and after adopting multiplier ‘16’, granted Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation, which in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be on the higher side. 6. In the circumstances, there are no grounds to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal and the appeal filed by the appellant-insurance company is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J April 7, 2011 SP/NRG THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A No. 1172 of 2007 April 7, 2011 SP/NRG