B. S. A. SWAMY, J. ( 1 ) THE A. P. TRANSCO filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 07-12-1998 in A. S. No. 190 of 1996 on the file of Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, enhancing the compensation payable to the respondent from Rs. 28,800. 00 to rs. 46,800/- by contending that the enhancement of the compensation given by the Additional District Judge by applying multiplier 19. 50 instead of 16 cannot be sustained in law. ( 2 ) THE facts are not in dispute. In the year 1986 the respondent s son aged about 17 years was electrocuted and thereafter the respondent filed O. S. No. 136 of 1986 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Madanapalle. The trial court having fixed the monthly income of the deceased boy at Rs. 300. 00 (i. e.) rs. 10/- per day, deducted l/3rd for his personal expenses and the loss of dependency was determined at Rs. 200. 00 per month and thereafter he applied multiplier 16 in awarding the compensation of Rs. 28,800. 00. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, both the appellant herein as well as the respondent filed appeals before the Additional District Judge, madanapalle. The learned Additional district Judge while dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant, allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and awarded compensation of Rs. 46,800. 00 by applying multiplier 19. 50. Hence, this appeal. ( 3 ) MR. J. Siddaiah, learned Standing counsel for TRANSCO contended that as per the Judgment of the Supreme Court (sic. A. P. High Court) reported in Bhagwandas v. Mohd. Arif, the multiplier to be applied is only 17, but not 19. 50 and hence, there is apparent error on the face of the record. It is true that in the said Judgment, the learned judge opined that for a person of 17 years age, the appropriate multiplier may be 17. But the self-same Judge in the note held that this is not a rule of thumb, and the multiplier can always be modified in the given circumstances by the court. In fact, the counsel for the respondent cited a Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Smt. Prerna v, M. P. State Road Transport corporation (Civil Appeal No. 278 (Arising out of Spl. In fact, the counsel for the respondent cited a Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Smt. Prerna v, M. P. State Road Transport corporation (Civil Appeal No. 278 (Arising out of Spl. L. P. (Civil) No. 530 of 1985), dated 28th January, 1993, wherein the multiplier 24 was applied for a boy of 26 years. Now the multiplier system is being applied only in case of deaths in motor vehicle accidents due to use of motor vehicles on roads. That judgment need not be applied in all corners while fixing compensation for a boy who died due to electrocution as happened in this case. Further, the trial court gravely erred in arriving at the monthly income of the deceased boy at Rs. 300. 00 (i. e. ,) Rs. 10. 00 per day without reference to the prevailing wages in the local area or the minimum wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act for an electrical worker. Hence, I feel that the compensation claimed and awarded by the learned Additional District Judge is far less than what the respondent is entitled. Since the respondent claimed only Rs. 50,000. 00 and the appellate court awarded compensation of Rs. 46,800. 00, I am not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the lower appellate court. ( 4 ) HENCE, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court is confirmed on all the aspects of the case. I do not find any merit in the Second Appeal and the same is dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs.