APHC010148122009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NOs: 577 of 2009 & 1888 of 2006 Bench Sr.No:-46 [3584] Smt. Nalluri Nageswari & Others ...Appellant(s) Vs. Sri Nalamalapu Narapa Reddy and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 13th August 2026 Present: Advocate for Appellant: G ANANDA RAO Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): A JAYANTHI COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) Both these appeals preferred under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, since assail the very same judgment and award dated 31.03.2006 in M.V.O.P. No.131 of 2004 passed by learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, are heard together and disposed by common order. 2. MACMA No.1888 of 2006 is preferred by insurer challenging award of compensation and whereas, in MACMA No.577 of 2009, the claimants are seeking enhancement of compensation. 2 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA Nos.577 of 2009 & 1888 of 2006 3. For convenience sake, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 4. (a) The deceased was Engineering Graduate and further got admission for pursuing MBA at Schiller International University, London. He was 24 years as on the date of accident. The deceased, while going on scooter from his residence to Tettali Village, en route at Gosthani river canal bridge, was hit by minivan bearing Registration No.AP 27T 9497 driven by its driver - 1st respondent. He fell down and sustained grievous injuries and succumbed on spot. The incident was reported to police, who registered crime against the driver of the offending vehicle. (b) The deceased graduated in B.Tech. in first division and to pursue further studies got admission in Master of Business Administration (MBA) at Schiller International University, London. Parents of deceased preferred the claim seeking compensation of ₹36,00,000/-, considering the potentiality of the deceased to earn ₹4,00,000/- per annum. (c) The 1st and 2nd respondent - driver and owner of offending vehicle chose not to file written statement. The 3rd respondent - insurer filed written statement denying that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent. Further, it was pleaded that deceased himself was responsible for the 3 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA Nos.577 of 2009 & 1888 of 2006 accident due to his negligent driving. The qualification, age and earnings of deceased were also disputed. (d) Basing on the aforesaid pleadings, Tribunal framed following issues: 1. Whether the deceased N.Satya Babu died in the motor accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.AP 27T 9493 (mini van) driven by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? (e) On behalf of claimants, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A14 and Ex.X1 were marked. None were examined for 3rd respondent, however, Ex.B1 was marked. (f) Upon appreciation of evidence, Tribunal answered first issue in favour of claimants, holding that deceased died in the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the van by its driver, which was essentially on appreciation of Ex.A1 - FIR and Ex.A2 - charge sheet and also evidence of P.W.2 - eye witness. The Tribunal determined income of deceased at ₹9,000/- per month on notional basis, after deducting 1/3rd of the same towards personal expenses, assessed the annual income. Further considering the age of mother of deceased, multiplier of 15 was applied. Accordingly, loss of income 4 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA Nos.577 of 2009 & 1888 of 2006 was assessed as ₹10,80,000/-. Tribunal awarded ₹10,000/- towards loss of estate, ₹2,500/- towards funeral expenses and thus, in total awarded ₹10,92,500/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. (g) Assailing the same, present appeals are preferred by both insurer as well as claimants. 5. Heard Sri G.Ananda Rao, learned counsel appearing for claimants and Smt.A.Jayanthi, learned standing counsel appearing for insurer. 6. Learned counsel for insurer contended that the amount of compensation determined by Tribunal is excessive and exorbitant, the Tribunal has determined income of deceased as ₹9,000/- per month, which is without any basis and supportive evidence. Learned counsel fairly stated that the liability of insurer is not in challenge. 7. (a) Per contra, learned counsel for claimants contended that the Tribunal has erred in considering income of deceased as ₹9,000/- per month on notional basis, without appreciating that the deceased was Engineering Graduate and also secured admission at Schiller International University, London, for pursuing further studies which definitely had brighter future prospects in career progression. 5 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA Nos.577 of 2009 & 1888 of 2006 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 (b) Further, it is also contended that Tribunal erred in not awarding future prospects and even the amounts awarded towards conventional heads were inadequate and not in commensurate with the dicta laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others1. Thus, prayed for re-determination of compensation accordingly. 8. We have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by both parties and perused the record. 9. Now, the issue that arises for our consideration is: 1. Whether the Tribunal committed error in assessing the income of the deceased as well as quantum of compensation and if so, what is the just, fair and reasonable compensation? 2. To what relief? 10. The liability of insurer is not in dispute. The Tribunal has considered income of deceased at ₹9,000/- per month on notional basis. The deceased died in the accident occurred on 20.02.2002. By then, deceased already graduated in Engineering. The evidence on record suggests that under Ex.A7, deceased was issued admission to pursue MBA in Schiller International University at London. The claimants also adduced evidence under Exs.A8 to 6 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA Nos.577 of 2009 & 1888 of 2006 A14, which are income tax returns for assessment years 1997- 1998 to 2001-2002. 11. The Tribunal, on appreciation of aforesaid evidence, held as under: “19. Thus, it is manifest from the ratio laid down from the above precedents that when the deceased is a young boy with meritorious educational qualifications having bright prospects in his future of secure suitable employment, the same has to be taken into consideration while fixing the income notionally. In the instant case, as discussed supra, Ex.A6 proves that the deceased is a first class electronics and communications engineering graduate and he also got an opportunity to study Master of Business Administration in London in Management of Information Technology which is now very lucrative field. Therefore, I have no hesitation at all in my mind to hold that the deceased would certainly secure a suitable employment in his future in lucrative business filed. So, considering his experience in the business of poultry and the services rendered by him and considering his meritorious educational qualifications and considering the broad probabilities of securing a suitable employment in his career on account of his bright educational career, the monthly income of the deceased can reasonably be fixed at least at Rs.9,000/-. There cannot be any yardstick in the facts and circumstances of the case to fix his exact income. But, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of 7 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA Nos.577 of 2009 & 1888 of 2006 2 2026 SCC OnLine SC 848 the case, only notional income can be fixed basing on his educational qualifications.” 12. The Tribunal has rightly come to conclusion that the deceased was sufficiently qualified and had great potential in securing suitable employment. Further, Tribunal was also oblivious to the fact of petitioner actively participating in the business of poultry, which is evident from the income tax returns. However, the Tribunal has definitely lost sight of Ex.A7, the admission secured for MBA course at London, which would be a significant factor in determining the income of deceased. But for the accident, the deceased in all probabilities would have pursued MBA from an International University, which definitely enhance the future prospects of deceased either in securing employment or excelling in the business. Learned counsel for claimants relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohinder Kaur (d) through L.R. v. Brij Lal Arora and others2, wherein, while considering the income of deceased of an engineering student who died on 28.05.2000, having regard to the brighter future prospects, the income of deceased therein was assessed at ₹12,000/- per annum. 8 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA Nos.577 of 2009 & 1888 of 2006 13. Since in the present case, the accident has occurred in the year 2002 and that the deceased not only graduated in Engineering but also secured admission for pursuing MBA course at London, we deem it appropriate to assess the income of deceased at ₹15,000/- per month. We also award future prospects at the rate of 40%. As deceased was unmarried, half of the income is deducted towards personal and living expenses. Considering the age of deceased as 24 years, multiplier of 18 is applied. In addition, towards conventional heads, the claimants are entitled to various components in tune with the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case1, which are accordingly granted. Therefore, the compensation stands revised as under: Compensation Heads Amount Awarded In accordance with Monthly Income ₹15,000/- Yearly Income ₹1,80,000/- Future Prospects (Age being 24 years) 40% of ₹1,80,000/- = ₹72,000/- National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 Paras 37, 39, 41, 42 and 59.4 Deduction (1/2) ₹2,52,000/- - ₹1,26,000/- = ₹1,26,000/- Multiplier (18) ₹1,26,000/- x 18 = ₹22,68,000/- Loss of Income of the deceased ₹22,68,000/- Loss of Estate ₹18,150/- (with 10% increase every 3 years from 2017) National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 9 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA Nos.577 of 2009 & 1888 of 2006 Loss of Funeral Expenses ₹18,150/- (with 10% increase every 3 years from 2017) Paras 37, 39, 41, 42 and 59.4 Loss of Consortium ₹48,400/- x 2 = ₹96,800/- (with 10% increase every 3 years from 2017) United Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur (2021) 11 SCC 780 Para 37.12 Rajwati alias Rajjo and Ors v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. And Ors. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1699 Para 34 Sadhana Tomar & Ors. Ashok Khushwaha & Ors. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 554 Para 17 Total ₹24,01,100/- 14. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. No.1888 of 2006 preferred by insurer is dismissed and M.A.C.M.A. No.5777 of 2009 preferred by claimants is allowed in the following terms: i) The claimants are granted revised compensation of ₹24,01,100/- as just and fair, with interest @ 7.5% per annum thereon from the date of claim petition till realization; ii) Out of the revised compensation amount, 1st claimant – mother of deceased is entitled for ₹15,38,000/- and 2nd claimant – father of deceased is entitled for ₹8,63,100/-. 10 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA Nos.577 of 2009 & 1888 of 2006 iii) The Insurer is directed to deposit the amount as aforesaid with interest and costs, adjusting the amount already deposited/paid, if any, before the Tribunal within one month. iv) On such deposit being made, the claimants are entitled to withdraw their respective shares as per the apportionment made above. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this case, if any, shall stand closed. LISA GILL, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J SS