THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2204 OF 2004 DATED:04-12-2009 Between: S.Basheerunnisa & 2 others. ..... APPELLANTS And S.Khader Basha & 3 another. .....RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 15-03-2004, in W.C.No.12 of 2001 on the file of the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Tirupathi, wherein the claim of the appellant was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.84,886/-. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. Appellants herein filed the claim application seeking compensation for the death of the deceased-Shamsheer Vali, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 02-02-1995. 1st claimant is the wife and the claimants 2 and 3 are the children of the deceased. According to them, the deceased was employed as driver in the lorry bearing No.AP03-T-8119, belonging to the 1st respondent herein and insured with the 2nd respondent, and that on 02-02-1995 when the deceased was driving the said vehicle from Sathara to Pune, a luxury bus came in the opposite direction and dashed against the lorry driven by the deceased as a result of which the deceased died. 4. 1st respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle, remained ex parte. 2nd respondent-insurer herein filed a counter opposing the claim and denying the liability to pay compensation. 5. During the enquiry, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked on behalf of the applicants. No oral evidence was adduced and Ex.R1 was marked on behalf of the respondents. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned Commissioner held that the deceased was a workman and he died in the course of employment as a driver of the lorry belonging to the 1st respondent. The learned Commissioner awarded a total compensation of Rs.84,886/-. Not satisfied with the award, the applicants filed the present appeal. 7. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned Commissioner failed to apply the relevant multiplying factor of 211.78, applicable to the age of the deceased, and thereby awarded a lesser amount towards compensation. It is not disputed as borne out by post mortem report-Ex.A2 that the deceased was aged 28 years. The learned Commissioner noted that as per the G.O.Ms.No.71, dated 16-04- 1991, the wage payable to the driver was Rs.1215/- per month besides VDA Rs.627.75/-, totalling Rs.1842.75 and the same was restricted to Rs.1000/- as per Explanation-II of Section 4(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 ( for brevity, ‘the Act’). The learned Commissioner having taken the above said age and wage into consideration arrived at the amount of Rs.84,716/- without however indicating the multiplying factor that was applied. As per Schedule-IV of the Act, the appropriate multiplying factor applicable to the age of a person aged 24 years is 211.78. By applying the same and taking 50% of the applicable wage into consideration, the compensation payable works out to Rs.1,05,890/- ( 211.78 X 500/-) The claimants are therefore entitled for the said amount of Rs.1,05,890/- and the sum of Rs.170/- towards stamp duty and the total amount of compensation comes to Rs.1,06,060/-. The impugned award is modified accordingly. The respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed as stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 04th December, 2009 Tsy