THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD L.P.A.NO.138 OF2001 JUDGMENT: {Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao} The appellant-Insurance Company filed this appeal under Clause XV of the Letters Patent aggrieved by the judgment dated 15.10.1999 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in C.M.A.No.931 of 1989 in allowing the said appeal filed against the order dated 02.11.1988 passed in O.P.No.104 of 1988 on the file of the Chairman, MACT-cum-I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, and in fixing the compensation at Rs.1,00,000/- for the death of the deceased-Dadi Lakshmana Rao in a motor accident. Briefly stated, the facts, which are necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that on 03.05.1987 at about 5 am when the deceased was proceeding along the road towards N.A.D. Road, a lorry bearing No.AEV 9599 came from behind at high speed and hit the deceased, as a result of which, he died on the spot. The claimants filed claim petition for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards death of the deceased. According to the claimants, the deceased was running a pan shop and was earning Rs.1,200/- per month. Hence, the claim. The said claim was contested by the appellant as well the other respondent, who happens to be the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident and during trial, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked on behalf of the claimants. No evidence, either oral or documentary, was adduced on behalf of the appellant herein. Considering the evidence available on record, the Court below granted compensation of Rs.15,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 12% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. Not satisfied thereby, the claimants filed appeal in C.M.A.No.931 of 1989. By taking into account the facts and circumstances and also the material on record, especially following the principles laid down in The U.P. State Road Transport Corporation And Others v. Trilok Chandra And Others[1] and applying the multiplier ‘10’ considering the age of the deceased, learned Single Judge of this Court granted compensation at Rs.1,00,000/-. Aggrieved thereby, the Insurance Company filed the present L.P.A. The only ground as could be evident from the memorandum of grounds of this appeal is in regard to the findings given by the trial Court and the learned Single Judge in regard to the rash and negligence of the driver of the lorry, which involved in the accident. Except the said ground, no other point has been urged. It is to be seen that during the course of trial before the Court below, the claimants produced sufficient evidence, which has been accepted by the trial Court and also by the learned Single Judge. On the other hand, the respondents did not adduce any evidence, either oral or documentary, in rebuttal. Thus, there is a concurrent finding, which could not be disputed in exercise of the powers under the Letters Patent and this Court could not re-appreciate the entire evidence to come to a different conclusion nor we find any prohibition in regard to the finding given by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Hence, we do not find any merits in this appeal. Accordingly, the L.P.A. is dismissed. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) __________________ (P.DURGA PRASAD, J) 28th January 2011 RRB [1] 1996 (4) SCC 362