C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANT who was involved in an accident caused by a jeep belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- apart from the compensation of Rs. 25,000/- claimed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act), in a separate O. P. and examined himself as P. W. 1 and the Doctor who treated him as p. W. 2 and marked Exhibits A1 to A5. First respondent chose to remain exparte both before the Tribunal and in this Court. Second respondent, who contested the claim, did not think it fit to adduce any evidence either oral or documentary. The Tribunal, having held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep belonging to the first respondent awarded Rs. 83,000/- as compensation to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded to him the claimant preferred this appeal. ( 2 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that, the Tribunal was in error in not awarding entire compensation claimed by the appellant and was in error in not taking into consideration the minimum wages payable under the MINIMUM WAGES ACT, 1948. He placed strong reliance on P. Eshwari Balarajaiah and others Vs. Md. Riyas and another in support of his contention that the wages payable to an injured claimant, if he happens to be a workmen, under the Minimum wages Act have to be taken into consideration. There is no representation on behalf of second respondent. ( 3 ) FOR the purpose of arriving at the compensation payable to the appellant, the tribunal took the wages of the appellant as Rs. 2,000/-p. m. Learned counsel for appellant relied on the preliminary notification, published in, the A. P. Gazette dated 29-10-1998, of the Labour, Employment, Training And Factories Department, in relation to the revision of Minimum rates of wages, in the employment in Mica works, included in Part-I of the Schedule of Minimum wages Act, where the minimum wage of a skilled mason is fixed at Rs. 1,549/-p. m. The accident in this case occurred on 19-3-1998 long prior to 29-10-1998, and so the said notification does not apply to this case. 1,549/-p. m. The accident in this case occurred on 19-3-1998 long prior to 29-10-1998, and so the said notification does not apply to this case. Even otherwise the wages of the appellant fixed by the Tribunal are more than the wages notified in the above notification, by the date of accident the Minimum wages notified in respect of construction or maintenance of roads and buildings operations, for a skilled class-I Mason were Rs. 1,150/- p. m. and for semi-skilled mason were Rs. 880/- p. m. ( 4 ) IT is not known whether the appellant is a skilled mason or a semi-skilled mason. That apart except the Ipsi Dixit of the appellant, there is nothing on record to show that he ever worked as a mason or was employed as a mason by some body. When the minimum wages of the skilled masons by the date of accident were rs. 1,150/- p. m. , and when the Tribunal took the income of the appellant at rs. 2,000/-p. m. appellant cannot have any grievance because his income was taken as almost the double of what he actually would have been earning by the date of accident. ( 5 ) SINCE the appellant was aged about 26 years by the date of accident, the tribunal took the multiplier as 17. Since his income was fixed at Rs. 24,000/- p. a. compensation to 100% disability would be Rs. 24,000/- X 17 = Rs. 4,08,000/ -. Since the evidence of P. W. 2 is that the appellant sustained 18% disability, 18% of Rs. 4,08,000/- comes to Rs. 73,440/ -. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 73,000/- towards the 18% disability sustained by him, which for the reasons stated above, is more than just and reasonable compensation for the disability allegedly sustained by the appellant. ( 6 ) THE Tribunal awarded Rs. 5,000/- to the appellant under the head pain and suffering and Rs. 5,000/- towards purchase of medicines in spite of the fact that he did not adduce any evidence to show that he spent any amount for purchase of medicines, which is more than reasonable. Thus Rs. 83,000/- awarded by the tribunal besides the compensation paid under Section 140 of the Act, for the permanent disability sustained by him in the accident, is almost a windfall on the appellant and so, I find no merits in this appeal. Thus Rs. 83,000/- awarded by the tribunal besides the compensation paid under Section 140 of the Act, for the permanent disability sustained by him in the accident, is almost a windfall on the appellant and so, I find no merits in this appeal. ( 7 ) HENCE the appeal is dismissed. No costs.