HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD L.P.A.No. 291 of 2001 Date: 31-01-2011 Between: The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., ……… Appellant and Mohammad Janiabee and others. ……….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD L.P.A.No. 291 of 2001 ORDER: (Per PDP, J) This Appeal under Section 15 of the Letter Patent arises out of the judgment, dated 15-02-2001 in C.M.A.No.2303 of 2000 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents herein filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) at Nalgonda, claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of the death of one Mohammad Jahangir Pasha, aged about 23 years, who is one of the family members of the respondents, pleading that on 21-02-1997 at about 7-30 PM, the deceased was travelling in an auto bearing No.AHT 8492 driven by its driver Kunde Narsimhulu at slow speed on the extreme left side of the road from Alair to Pedda Kandukuru village, and when the auto reached near B.C. Colony of Alair Town, suddenly a tractor bearing No. AP 24 U 5645 driven by its driver in a zig-zag and rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against the auto, due to which the driver of the auto and the deceased Jahangir sustained injuries. The deceased died in the hospital due to injuries. Before the Tribunal, the appellant herein filed counter pleading that the compensation claimed is excessive and put the respondents to strict proof of the petition averments. During the course of evidence, on behalf of the respondents herein PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked. On behalf of the appellant, none were examined, however, Ex.B-1, copy of the insurance policy, was marked. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor and taken into consideration the contribution of the deceased to his mother at Rs.600/- per month and applied multiplier 16 and accordingly, awarded the compensation at Rs.1,15,200/-. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company filed C.M.A.No.2303 of 2000 before this Court and a learned single Judge of this Court held that the appellant has not produced any evidence that the deceased was unmarried and the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation by taking into consideration the income and age of the deceased and thereby dismissed the Appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, the present Appeal is filed. The pleading of the appellant is that the deceased is an unmarried person and therefore, his mother’s age should be taken into consideration for applying the multiplier, but the Tribunal has taken into consideration the age of the deceased for the purpose of applying the multiplier. However, the said plea was not taken by the appellant before the Tribunal and he has raised the plea for the first time before the learned single Judge, and the learned single Judge, by taking into consideration of all the material placed before the Tribunal, rightly dismissed the Appeal. Therefore, there are no merits in the Appeal and no substantial question of law is involved in this Appeal. Accordingly, the Letter Patent Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J __________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J Date: 31-01-2011 YCR