APHC010195922007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos:1442 OF 2007 AND 2082 OF 2009 Bench Sr.No:-57 [3584] M.A.C.M.A.No.1442 OF 2007 U. Rajani Priya and Others ...Appellant(s) Vs. APSRTC rep by its Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, rep. by Depot Manager, APSRTC, Kandukur. ...Respondent ********** CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 24th August 2026 Present: Advocate for Appellants/Claimants: MR.SUDHAKARA RAO AMBATI Advocate for Respondent/ Corporation: MR.N.SUBRAHMANYA RUPESH, REPRESENTING MR. P. VENKATA RAO (SC FOR APSRTC) *** COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) Both these appeals, instituted under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”), challenge the very same judgment and award, dated 08.03.2007, in M.V.O.P.No.247 of 2005 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Ongole (for short, “the Tribunal”), thus, are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. Nos.1442 of 2007 & 2082 of 2009 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they were arrayed in the M.V.O.P. before the Tribunal. 3. M.A.C.M.A.No.1442 of 2007 is preferred by claimants seeking enhancement of compensation, whereas, M.A.C.M.A. No.2082 of 2009, by APSRTC (hereinafter referred to as “Corporation”) assailing the determination of compensation. 4. (a) Deceased claims to be Sales Representative, met with an accident while he was proceeding on a motorcycle, the accident occurred on 08.05.2005 at 1.30 P.M. near Old Government Hospital, Ongole. The driver of bus bearing registration No.AP 10 Z 7495, belonging to the Corporation, drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle causing the accident. The incident was reported to police. On reporting the same, police registered Crime No.89 of 2005 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC against the driver of the bus. After conducting investigation, police laid charge-sheet against driver of the bus. (b) Deceased claimed to be aged 36 years and earning about Rs.5,000/- per month as Sales Representative, therefore, wife, minor son and parents of deceased preferred claim seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- along with interest. 3 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. Nos.1442 of 2007 & 2082 of 2009 5. Respondent-Corporation filed written statement denying the manner in which accident occurred and that its driver was negligent in causing the accident. It was further pleaded that as the motorcycle, on which deceased was proceeding, was hit by another motorcycle, resultantly, the deceased lost control and fell down, therefore, no negligence can be attributed to the driver of bus. Further, age, avocation and income of deceased were disputed. 6. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: “1) Whether the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle of Respondent? 2) What is the correct age and income of the deceased as on the date of the accident? 3) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? 4. To what relief?” 7. Claimants examined PW.1 and PW.2 and marked Exs.A1 to A8. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of respondent Corporation. 8. The Tribunal has answered first issue holding that both the deceased as well as driver of bus were negligent in causing the accident and accordingly, fixed the contributory negligence in ratio of 20:80 respectively. For the purpose of determining the quantum of 4 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. Nos.1442 of 2007 & 2082 of 2009 compensation, the Tribunal considered age of deceased as 36 years. The income of deceased was determined at Rs.3,000/- per month. After applying multiplier of 16, 1/3rd of earnings were deducted towards personal and living expenses, and accordingly, loss of income was assessed. Tribunal also awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and thus, determined the compensation of Rs.4,90,800/-. Since the Corporation was fixed with liability of 80%, the compensation payable was arrived at Rs.3,92,640/-, rounded up to Rs.3,93,000/-, payable along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation. The said amount has been apportioned amongst the claimants as provided under the award. 9. Assailing the same, present appeals are preferred by both claimants as well as respondent Corporation. 10. Heard Mr.Sudhakar Rao Ambati, learned counsel for claimants and Mr.N.Subrahmanya Rupesh, learned counsel, representing Mr. P. Venkata Rao, learned standing counsel for APSRTC, for Corporation. 11. Learned counsel for claimants primarily contended that the Tribunal erred in determining income of deceased merely as Rs.3,000/- per month, without appreciating Ex.A8 salary certificate and Ex.A7 Adangal copy, which clearly suggested that the deceased had sufficient 5 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. Nos.1442 of 2007 & 2082 of 2009 income, and thus, the Tribunal ought to have determined the income at least as Rs.5,000/- per month. He further contended that the Tribunal not only failed to award future prospects, but also did not award the components falling within conventional heads in terms of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi1. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Corporation tried to support and justify the order of Tribunal insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned. However, learned counsel for Corporation contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing the contributory negligence in the ratio of 20:80, which is erroneous, inasmuch as even as per the evidence of PW.2 and Ex.A1 FIR, Ex.A6 charge-sheet, the motorcycle, on which deceased was riding, was hit by another motorcycle from behind, thus, deceased lost control and fell down towards their right side, to their misfortune, bus coming from opposite direction had hit the deceased, which in no manner can be attributed to the driver of bus. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have determined the negligence in the ratio of 50:50. 13. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by learned counsels for parties and perused the record. 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 6 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. Nos.1442 of 2007 & 2082 of 2009 14. Now the point that falls for consideration of this Court is: Whether the Tribunal was justified in fixing the contributory negligence in the ratio of 20:80 to the deceased and the driver of bus, respectively, and further, whether the amount of compensation determined under the impugned award is fair, just and reasonable? 15. The occurrence of accident is not in dispute. As per the version of claimants, while deceased, along with PW.2, was proceeding on motorcycle, the driver of Corporation bus, which came in opposite direction, dashed against the motorcycle, therefore, deceased fell down and succumbed due to injuries and even PW.2 also sustained injuries. In order to establish the same, Ex.A1 FIR, Ex.A2 inquest report, Ex.A5 rough sketch and Ex.A6 charge-sheet were marked, besides examining PW.2. Whereas, it is the case of Corporation that the deceased and PW.2 were first hit by another motorcycle from behind, thus, having lost control over the motorcycle, they fell down towards right side and only, thereafter, the offending bus coming in opposite direction had hit the deceased. To support the version of Corporation, neither its driver was examined nor the rider of the other motorcycle, who alleged to have hit the motorcycle of deceased. Nevertheless, in the cross-examination, PW.2 as well as Ex.A6 charge-sheet, there was reference to another 7 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. Nos.1442 of 2007 & 2082 of 2009 motorcycle hitting the motorcycle of deceased from behind, on account of which deceased fell down, and thereafter, the accident occurred. Considering aforesaid evidence, the Tribunal has rendered finding that there is some amount of negligence on the part of deceased, further that the driver of bus cannot be held to be absolutely non-negligent, thus, fixed the negligence in the ratio of 20:80. Even by accepting the version of PW.2 as well as Ex.A6 charge-sheet, but for the third party hitting the motorcycle of deceased from behind, they would not have fallen down, resultantly, occurring the accident. At any rate, it is undeniable fact that the driver of bus also could not control the bus in averting the accident. Therefore, we are of the view that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is amply justified and does not call for any interference. Thus, we uphold the findings of the Tribunal insofar as fixing the contributory negligence in the ratio of 20:80 to the deceased and driver of bus, respectively. 16. Now coming to the aspect of quantum of compensation, the important piece of evidence relied on by claimants to justify the income of deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month are Ex.A8 salary certificate and Ex.A7 Adangal copy for the Fasli 1410 (i.e., year 2000-’01). The deceased was claimed to be working as Sales Representative in M/s.Sri Sai Agro Chemicals, Ongole, in support, Ex.A8 salary certificate was produced. PW.2, proprietor of the said firm, deposed that deceased was working, however, it was stated that as deceased was closely related, 8 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. Nos.1442 of 2007 & 2082 of 2009 no accounts were maintained with regard to the salary etc. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal disbelieved Ex.A8 salary certificate. Apart from that, it was also held that PW.2, employer, did not even produce any evidence such as employment register, payment vouchers or any other record to prove deceased was gainfully employed. 17. Further, insofar as agricultural income is concerned, claimants relied on Ex.A7 Adangal copy of the year 2000-01, which is five years prior to the date of accident. No doubt, in the occupation column, the record indicates that the deceased was cultivating tenant, the same cannot be stretched to presume that deceased was continuing to cultivate the lands and earning income. Even otherwise also, the Tribunal has considered the income of deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month, as against the minimum wages payable to unskilled at relevant point of time, ranging from Rs.69/- to Rs.80/- per day, which translates to Rs.2,080/- p.m. (Rs.80/- per day x 26 days = Rs.2,080/- per month). We, therefore, are satisfied that the income assessed by the Tribunal is reasonable in all respects, thus, we maintain it. 18. We further award future prospects at the rate of 40%. Further, even various amounts awarded under conventional heads also require to be revised following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi1. 9 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. Nos.1442 of 2007 & 2082 of 2009 19. Thus, we hereby modify the impugned award and grant just and fair compensation as detailed below. Compensation Heads Amount Awarded In Accordance with: Net annual income ₹3,000/- x 12 = ₹36,000/- Future Prospects (Age being 36 years) 40% of ₹36,000/- = ₹14,400/- National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 Para 37, 39, 41, 42 and 59.4 Deduction (1/4th) ₹50,400/- – ₹12,600/- =₹37,800/- Multiplier (15) ₹37,800/- x 15 = ₹5,67,000/- Loss of Income of the deceased ₹5,67,000/- Loss of Estate ₹18,150/- (with 10% increase every 3 years from 2017) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 Para 37, 39, 41, 42 and 59.4 Funeral expenses ₹18,150/- (with 10% increase every 3 years from 2017) Loss of Consortium ₹48,400 x 4 = ₹1,93,600/- (with 10% increase every 3 years from 2017) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780 Para 37.12 Rajwati alias Rajjo v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1699 Para 34 Sadhana Tomar v. Ashok Khushwaha 10 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. Nos.1442 of 2007 & 2082 of 2009 2025 SCC OnLine SC 554 Para 17 Total ₹7,96,900/-, 80% of which comes to Rs.6,37,520/- 20. Accordingly, both these appeals are disposed of and the impugned order, dated 08.03.2007, shall stand modified, by revising the compensation amount to Rs.6,37,520/- as just and fair compensation, along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. thereon from the date of claim petition till date of realisation. Out of which, 1st claimant is entitled to Rs.3,12,520/-; 2nd claimant is entitled to Rs.1,25,000/- and claimants 3 and 4 are entitled for Rs.1,00,000/- each. The respondent Corporation to deposit the amount as aforesaid, adjusting the amount already deposited/paid if any, before the Tribunal within one month. On such deposit being made, the claimants shall be entitled to withdraw the same as apportioned above, failing which, the amount shall be recovered as per law. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. LISA GILL, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J cs