APHC010589672017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.1806 of 2015 AND 2588 of 2017 Bench Sr.No:-79 [3584] MACMA No.1806 of 2015: Gannapureddy Vara Lakshmi and Others. …Appellants Vs. Shaik Habijur Rahaman, driver of lorry & Ors. ….Respondents **** Advocate for Appellants: MR. B.V. KRISHNA REDDY Advocate for respondent No.3: MR. GUDI SRINIVASU ***** MACMA No.2588 of 2017 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant Vs. Gannapureddi Vara Lakshmi and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Appellant: MR.GUDI SRINIVASU Advocate for respondents: Mr.B V KRISHNA REDDY ***** CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 9th July 2026 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) Both these appeals - one preferred by claimants and the other by insurer - arise out of the very same award, dated 13.03.2015, in M.V.O.P. No.85 OF 2010, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident 2 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. Nos.1806 of 2015 & 2588 of 2017 Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Eluru, (for short, “the Tribunal”), hence, the same are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 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.1806 of 2015 is preferred by claimants and whereas M.A.C.M.A.No.2588 of 2017 is preferred by Insurer. The insurance company challenges the quantum of compensation determined by the Tribunal, whereas the claimants in their Appeal seek further enhancement of compensation. 4. The facts relevant for disposal of these appeals are set out as under: (a) Deceased, Gannapureddi Srinivasa Rao, along with his friend M.Satish, was travelling in a new F/R Swift car, from Veeravasaram to Visakhapatnam, on NH-5, driven by the driver G. Narayana Rao. When they reached near Marribanda Village, Visakhapatnam, around midnight, driver of lorry bearing registration No.WB 41 B 4628, drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner at high speed without blowing the horn and dashed against the said new Swift car, from its behind. As a result, the new Swift car was totally 3 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. Nos.1806 of 2015 & 2588 of 2017 damaged and the deceased sustained multiple, grievous and bleeding injuries on head and stomach and died on the spot. It is stated that at the time of his death, the deceased was 43 years old and was an established businessman, agriculturist, and regular income-tax assessee with several commercial ventures. Wife along with two minor children and mother of deceased preferred a claim before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.2,03,00,000/-. (b) The driver and owner of the lorry, who have been arrayed as respondent Nos.1 and 2, during trial remained ex parte, and whereas respondent No. 3 Insurer filed counter denying and disputing the manner in which the accident occurred. The driver of offending vehicle was not negligent in causing the accident, besides disputing the earnings, age and driving licence of the deceased, therefore, the claim to be excessive and exorbitant and prayed for dismissal of the O.P. 5. Considering the respective pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: “i. Whether the Motor Vehicle accident on 27.03.2009 on N.H.5 near Marribanda Village of Visakhapatnam District, arose on account of negligence of driver of R.1 Lorry bearing No.WB 41 B 4628, resulting death of the deceased Gannapureddi Srinivasa Rao? ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so, for what amount and from which of the respondents? iii. To what relief?” 4 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. Nos.1806 of 2015 & 2588 of 2017 6. In support of the claim, PWs.1 to 15 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.25 and Exs.X.1 to X.5 were marked. Likewise, on behalf of Insurer, RW.1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked. 7. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal ultimately concluded that the driver of offending vehicle was negligent and responsible for causing accident and that the deceased died due to injuries sustained in the accident. The Tribunal partly allowed the O.P., awarding a total compensation of Rs.1,31,53,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The compensation awarded was apportioned among the claimants – Rs.1,00,00,000/- to the wife; Rs.15,00,000/- each to the two minors sons; and Rs.1.53,000/- to the mother of deceased. The Tribunal held that the driver, owner and the insurer jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid award amount. 8. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurer had preferred M.A.C.M.A. No.2588 of 2017 contending that the compensation awarded was excessive and exorbitant. The claimants have also preferred M.A.C.M.A. No.1806 of 2015, dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation so determined. 5 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. Nos.1806 of 2015 & 2588 of 2017 9. Heard Sri B.V. Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants and Sri Gudi Srinivasu, learned standing counsel for the insurer, in both the appeals. 10. Learned counsel for the insurer mainly contended that the Tribunal was not justified in considering the income-tax return for assessment year 2009-’10, inasmuch as the same came to be filed after the date of accident, therefore, the earnings of the deceased were not properly assessed. He also contended that the agricultural income as shown in income tax return for the year 2009-‘10, particularly depicting that there was a loss on account of agricultural operations, ought not to have been taken into consideration, inasmuch as the deceased would still be left with the agricultural property. He further contended that the Tribunal has granted future prospects at the rate of 30%, whereas, by applying the formulae laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi1, inasmuch as deceased was aged 43 years, the appropriate future prospects to be applied would be 25%. 11. Learned counsel for the claimants, while supporting the order of the Tribunal with regard to placing reliance on income tax returns 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 6 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. Nos.1806 of 2015 & 2588 of 2017 for 2009-10 for the purpose of assessing the income of deceased, would contend that the Tribunal not only has taken into consideration the income tax returns for the year 2009-’10, but also taken note of the fact that the deceased was assessed to income tax much prior to and even the income tax return for the preceding assessment years viz., 2005-‘06, 2006-’07, 2007-’08 and 2008-‘09 were also brought on record by examining PW.12-the auditor and PW.6-the income tax officer. Therefore, the order does not suffer from any perversity in that regard. That apart, learned counsel for the claimants further contends that the agriculture income shown in the income tax returns emanated from leased lands, but not the lands owned by the deceased, therefore, rightly, the Tribunal has taken into account income per se. He further contended that the Tribunal has not awarded just and fair compensation towards the conventional heads, as merely an amount of Rs.25,000/- was awarded towards consortium for only one claimant, besides Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.30,000/- towards loss of estate. In that view of the matter, it is urged that, following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi1, the claimants are entitled to various components of conventional heads. 7 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. Nos.1806 of 2015 & 2588 of 2017 12. We have gone through the material on record and considered the submissions of both the learned counsels. 13. The first issue which is in controversy in both the Appeals is the assessment of income of the deceased. The Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence, in particular, Exs.A.13 and A.25, coupled with the evidence of PWs.6 and 12, has assessed annual income of deceased as Rs.10,07,524/- and after deducting the tax payable, arrived at the income as Rs.9,58,826/-. In assessing the said income, the Tribunal has also taken note of the fact that the deceased was an assessee much before the occurrence of accident and that even the income tax returns for the preceding assessment years 2006-‘07, 2007-‘08 and 2008-‘09 were placed by way of evidence under Exs. X.2, X.3 and X.4. The Tribunal has also considered the factum of the assessee- the deceased being engaged in cultivation of lands, and therefore, rightly considered the agricultural income, which was disclosed in the income tax return for the assessment year 2009-‘10. However, since the evidence on record has revealed that the deceased was merely cultivating the lands on lease and whereas the lands originally belonged to third parties, despite the objection raised that the income ought not have been taken into consideration, the agricultural income has been factored into for the purpose of assessing the income of the 8 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. Nos.1806 of 2015 & 2588 of 2017 deceased. The approach of the Tribunal, in our considered opinion, is justified and we find no infirmity. Therefore, the income of deceased as assessed by the Tribunal is hereby confirmed. 14. The Tribunal has considered future prospects at the rate of 30%, which is not in consonance with the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi1. Likewise, the Tribunal has considered various amounts towards conventional heads as mentioned supra, which are not in consonance with the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi1. Therefore, both these heads are required to be modified accordingly. The claimants, therefore, are entitled to just and fair compensation as under: Compensation Heads Amount Awarded In Accordance with: Net annual income ₹9,58,826/- Future Prospects (Age being 43 years) 25% of ₹9,58,826/- = ₹2,39,706/- National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 Para 37, 39, 41, 42 and 59.4 Deduction (1/4) ₹11,98,532 – ₹2,99,633 = ₹8,98,899/- Multiplier (14) ₹8,98,899/- x 14 = ₹1,25,84,586/- Loss of Income of the deceased ₹1,25,84,586/- Loss of Estate ₹18,150/- 9 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. Nos.1806 of 2015 & 2588 of 2017 (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 2025 SCC OnLine SC 554 Para 17 Total ₹1,28,14,486/- 15. Accordingly, both the Appeals are disposed of. The impugned order, dated 13.03.2015, shall stand modified, by revising the compensation amount to Rs.1,28,14,486/- as just and fair compensation. The Insurer to deposit the amount as aforesaid with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a., and costs, adjusting the amount 10 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. Nos.1806 of 2015 & 2588 of 2017 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 in the proportion as per the Award, failing which, the amount shall be recovered as per law. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in these appeals, if any, shall stand closed. LISA GILL, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J cs