APHC010019972012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NOs: 2857 of 2012 & 3149 of 2012 Bench Sr.No:-62 & 62.1 [3584] H.Ramachandra Raju and Others ...Appellant(s) Vs. Mrs.Sukumari Chandra Sekharan and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 8th September 2026 Present: Advocate for Appellant: O UDAYA KUMAR Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): RAMA MOHAN RAO KOTHA, C PRAKASH REDDY COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) Both these appeals preferred by claimants under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, since arise out of same accident, albeit different claims, decided by common order dated 10.02.2012 in M.V.O.P. No.157 of 2003 and M.V.O.P. No.418 of 2003 respectively, are heard together and disposed by present common order. 2 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA Nos.2857 & 3149 of 2012 2. For convenience sake, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. Both M.A.C.M.A. Nos.2857 and 3149 of 2012 are preferred by respective claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. The deceased H. Udaya Kumar and A.Narasimha Raju, along with two other family members, were travelling in car (TN 01M 6435) from Arumbakkam to Tiruthani. En route, the car dashed against a lorry (AP 02T 8654), which was coming in opposite direction, thus, both deceased succumbed due to injuries. Police have registered Crime No.594 of 2002 for offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC against the driver of car, and thereafter charge sheet was laid. 4. Parents and wife of deceased H.Udaya Kumar preferred M.V.O.P. No.157 of 2003 seeking compensation of ₹3,00,00,000/- along with interest. It was claimed that deceased was 29 years, completed mechanical engineering in first class, later employed in USA at Technosoft Company and as on the date of accident, he was employed with WAL-MART as computer programmer analyst and drawing annual salary of US$ 53,000. 5. Likewise, wife, son, daughter and mother of deceased A. Narasimha Raju, preferred claim in M.V.O.P. No.418 of 2003, seeking compensation of ₹70,00,000/- along with interest. He was 3 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA Nos.2857 & 3149 of 2012 aged 46 years and working as Senior Manager (Finance) at Indian Airlines and was drawing salary of ₹45,060/- per month. The deceased also stated to have been earning ₹1,00,000/- per annum on account of agricultural activity. 6. 1st respondent and 3rd respondent in both these petitions, who are owners of car and lorry remained ex parte and their insurers - respondents 2 and 4 contested the proceedings by filing written statements. Both insurers denied that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of respective drivers, therefore, no liability can be fastened on them. 7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed following issues in O.P. Nos.157 of 2003 and 418 of 2003 as under: O.P. No.157 of 2003: 1. Whether the deceased H.Udaya Kumar, son of petitioners 1 and 2 and husband of petitioner No.3, died in the motor vehicle accident that took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the drivers of the Ambassador Car bearing No.TN 01 M 6435 and Lorry bearing No.AP 02T 8654 on 07-06-2002? 2. What was the age and income of the deceased by the date of his death? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount? By whom? 4. To what relief? 4 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA Nos.2857 & 3149 of 2012 O.P. No.418 of 2003: 1. Whether the deceased A.Narasimha Raju @ A.N.Raju, husband of 1st petitioner, father of petitioners 2 and 3 and son of 4th petitioner, died in the motor vehicle accident that took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the drivers of the Ambassador Car bearing No.TN 01M 6435 and Lorry bearing No.AP 02T 8654 on 07-06-2002? 2. What was the age and income of the deceased by the date of his death? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount? By whom? 4. To what relief? 8. Claimants examined PW1 to PW5 and marked Exs.A1 to A31. On behalf of respondents 2 and 4, RWs.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.B1 to B10 were marked. 9. In both the O.P.s, first issue regarding the aspect of negligence, the Tribunal answered in favour of claimants, holding that accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver and further that there was no negligence attributable to driver of lorry. Tribunal also held that it is not a case of composite negligence. 10. In regard to compensation payable to the deceased H.Udaya Kumar, the Tribunal considered the following factors and determined the compensation as under: 5 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA Nos.2857 & 3149 of 2012 S.No. Heads Remarks 1. Monthly Income ₹50,000/- 2. Age of deceased 29 3. Multiplier (at the age of 29 years) 17 4. Deduction towards personal and living expenses 1/3rd 5. Loss of Consortium ₹10,000/- 6. Funeral Expenses ₹5,000/- 7. Total compensation granted ₹47,75,000/- 8. Interest 7.5% per annum 11. In regard to compensation payable to the deceased A.Narasimha Raju, the Tribunal consider the following factors and determined the compensation as under: S.No. Heads Remarks 1. Annual Income ₹2,60,328/- 2. Age of deceased 47 3. Multiplier (at the age of 47 years) 13 4. Deduction towards personal and living expenses 1/3rd 5. Loss of Consortium ₹10,000/- 6. Funeral Expenses ₹5,000/- 6 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA Nos.2857 & 3149 of 2012 7. Total compensation granted ₹28,33,244/- 8. Interest 7.5% per annum 12. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, claimants preferred the respective appeals. M.A.C.M.A. No.2857 of 2012: 13. (a) Sri O.Udaya Kumar, learned counsel for appellants/claimants primarily contended that despite there being ample evidence on record suggesting deceased was earning US$ 53,000 in gross and after taxes, US$ 31,000 net, the Tribunal, ignoring the same, assessed income at ₹50,000/- on notional basis, which is completely erroneous. It is contended that even co-employee was examined as P.W.4, who corroborated with the documentary evidence, therefore, income of deceased ought to have been assessed at ₹15,19,000/- per annum after applying the proper conversion rate from USD to Indian Rupees. (b) He further contended that the Tribunal erred in not awarding future prospects by holding that deceased was merely working on temporary basis. Lastly, he contended that consortium and funeral expenses awarded by Tribunal are meagre and the same are not in consonance with the principles laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court 7 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA Nos.2857 & 3149 of 2012 in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others1. 14. Per contra, Sri C.Prakash Reddy and Sri Ram Mohan Rao Kotha, learned counsel appearing for respective insurers, while supporting the impugned award, contended that since deceased was neither citizen nor green card holder, merely had work permit up to 01.06.2004, the Tribunal rightly assessed his income on notional basis having regard to his educational qualifications and the nature of temporary job he held, which cannot be said to be perverse in any manner. It is also contended that the deceased joined WAL-MART just 10 months prior to occurrence of accident, no other piece of evidence has been placed on record to suggest income of deceased prior to accident, therefore, income as determined by Tribunal does not call for any interference. He also contended that since deceased was not holding permanent employment, the Tribunal was justified in not awarding future prospects, thus, pleaded for dismissal of the appeal. 15. The insurer is not in appeal challenging the aspect of liability, therefore, the only question that arises for our consideration is 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 8 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA Nos.2857 & 3149 of 2012 whether the compensation determined by Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable. 16. It is the case of claimants that deceased, who was qualified mechanical engineer, working as computer program analyst in WAL-MART at USA was earning US$ 31,000 after taxes. By applying the then applicable conversion rate, deceased was earning about ₹15,19,000/- per annum. In support, claimants relied on Exs.A8 to A13 and A16. Claimants also examined PW4, co-employee, to corroborate the same. Considering aforesaid evidence, the Tribunal reasoned that deceased was neither US citizen nor holding green card to demonstrate that the job held by him was permanent in nature, rather, he had work permit only up to 01.06.2004. Further, the evidence also suggests that deceased joined at WAL-MART just 10 months prior to accident and there is no other evidence indicating the income for the period anterior thereto. That apart, in the written arguments, the claimants themselves stated that equivalent job of deceased would fetch salary of ₹38,000/- per month. 17. In that backdrop, the Tribunal has assessed the income of deceased at ₹50,000/- per month. The reasoning adopted by Tribunal, in our view, is absolutely justified. We therefore do not intend to interfere with the income as assessed. Having said that 9 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA Nos.2857 & 3149 of 2012 the Tribunal refused to award future prospects, which is not appropriate, thus, we award future prospects at the rate of 40% considering the age and nature of job held by the deceased and further, even conventional heads also stand revised in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s Case1. 18. Thus, the compensation stands revised as under: Compensation Heads Amount Awarded In accordance with Monthly Income ₹50,000/- Yearly Income ₹6,00,000/- Future Prospects (Age being 29 years) 40% of ₹6,00,000/- = ₹2,40,000/- National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 Paras 37, 39, 41, 42 and 59.4 Deduction (1/3) ₹8,40,000/- - ₹2,80,000/- = ₹5,60,000/- Multiplier (17) ₹5,60,000/- x 17 = ₹95,20,000/- Loss of Income of the deceased ₹95,20,000/- Loss of Estate ₹18,150/- (with 10% increase every 3 years from 2017) National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 Paras 37, 39, 41, 42 and 59.4 Loss of Funeral Expenses ₹18,150/- (with 10% increase every 3 years from 2017) Loss of Consortium ₹48,400/- x 3 = ₹1,45,200/- (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. 10 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA Nos.2857 & 3149 of 2012 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1699 Para 34 Sadhana Tomar & Ors. Ashok Khushwaha & Ors. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 554 Para 17 Total ₹97,01,500/- M.A.C.M.A. No.3149 of 2012: 19. Sri O.Udaya Kumar, learned counsel for appellants/ claimants, mainly contended that the Tribunal has taken into consideration income of deceased at ₹2,60,328/- per annum ignoring the evidence on record such as Exs.A23, A29 and Ex.B3, which are salary particulars and pay slips. Learned counsel, while referring to aforesaid Exhibits, in particular Ex.A23, submits that income of deceased ought to have been considered as ₹33,960/- per month after excluding the incentives. Further, he also contended that Tribunal has awarded meagre compensation towards consortium and funeral expenses, which are not in consonance with the dicta laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s Case1, thus, urged for determination of just, fair and reasonable compensation. 11 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA Nos.2857 & 3149 of 2012 20. Learned counsel for the insurer, on the other hand, tried to support the impugned award. Even in the present appeal, there is no challenge to the liability of insurer, therefore, the only question that would arise for our consideration is whether the compensation determined by Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable. 21. The Tribunal has considered income of deceased as ₹2,60,328/- per annum. However, the evidence on record, in particular Ex.A23 - Salary Slip, clearly demonstrates deceased was paid monthly salary of ₹33,960/- after deduction of the incentives. Even Exs.A29 and B3 are also in similar lines. As against aforesaid evidence, there is no other contra material or evidence from the side of insurer to disprove the same, therefore, we are inclined to accept the income of deceased at ₹33,960/- per month. The same being gross salary, income tax has to be deducted as per applicable slab rates prevalent at that point of time. Since deceased died on 07.06.2002, we consider it apt to apply the tax rate as applicable for assessment year 2003-04 (Financial Year – 2002-03). Income Tax Computation – Assessment Year 2003-2004 Financial Year 2002-2003 Monthly income ₹33,960/- Annual income (₹33,960 × 12) ₹4,07,520/- 12 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA Nos.2857 & 3149 of 2012 Tax Slab Rate Taxable Amount Tax Up to ₹50,000 (excluding standard deduction of ₹20,000/-) 0% NIL ₹0/- ₹50,001 to ₹60,000 10% ₹10,000/- ₹1,000/- ₹60,001 to ₹1,50,000/- 20% ₹90,000/- ₹18,000/- Above ₹1,50,000/- 30% ₹2,37,520/- ₹71,256/- Total tax ₹90,256/- 22. Since there is no dispute with regard to the age, multiplier and percentage of deduction towards personal and living expenses, the same are maintained. With regard to the observation made by the Tribunal that the 3rd claimant is not entitled to compensation in this case, as she was wife of deceased H.Udaya Kumar, which is the subject matter of M.V.O.P. No.157 of 2003, we are of the opinion that said finding is well-founded and does not warrant any interference. 23. Thus, the compensation payable is revised as under: Compensation Heads Amount Awarded In accordance with Monthly Income ₹33,960/- Yearly Income ₹4,07,520/- Less – Income Tax ₹4,07,520/- - ₹90,256/- = ₹3,17,264/- Future Prospects (Age being 46 years) 40% of ₹3,17,264/- = ₹1,26,906/- National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 Deduction (1/3) ₹4,44,170/- - ₹1,48,057/- = ₹2,96,113/- 13 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA Nos.2857 & 3149 of 2012 Multiplier (13) ₹2,96,113/- x 13 = ₹38,49,469/- Paras 37, 39, 41, 42 and 59.4 Loss of Income of the deceased ₹38,49,469/- Loss of Estate ₹18,150/- (with 10% increase every 3 years from 2017) National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 Paras 37, 39, 41, 42 and 59.4 Loss of Funeral Expenses ₹18,150/- (with 10% increase every 3 years from 2017) 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 ₹39,82,569/- (rounded off to ₹39,82,600/-) 24. In the result, both appeals preferred by claimants are disposed of in the following terms: M.A.C.M.A.No.2857 of 2012: i) The claimants are granted revised compensation of ₹97,01,500/- as just and fair, with interest @ 7.5% per annum thereon from the date of claim petition till realization; 14 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA Nos.2857 & 3149 of 2012 ii) Out of the revised compensation amount, claimants 1 and 2 are entitled for ₹32,25,000/- each and 3rd claimant is entitled for ₹32,51,500/-. 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. M.A.C.M.A. No.3149 of 2012: i) The claimants are granted revised compensation of ₹39,82,600/- 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 is entitled for ₹21,09,000/- and 2nd claimant is entitled for ₹18,73,600/-. Since the 3rd claimant, daughter of deceased A.Narasimha Raju and wife of deceased H.Udaya Kumar, is also the claimant in M.A.C.M.A. No.2857 of 2012, as rightly held by the Tribunal, she is not entitled for compensation in this case. 15 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA Nos.2857 & 3149 of 2012 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. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this case, if any, shall stand closed. LISA GILL, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J SS