APHC010757862016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1556 of 2016 Bench Sr.No:-67 [3584] APSRTC, Hyderabad ...Appellant Vs. K.P.Naarasimhulu, Kadapa Dist., and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Appellant: ARAVALA RAMA RAO (SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): SRINIVAS AMBATI CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 14th July 2026 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) This appeal is preferred by appellant/Corporation under Section 173 of M.V. Act, assailing the judgment and order dated 25.06.2015 in M.V.O.P. No.315 of 2014, passed by learned IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa, by which the compensation for a sum of ₹93,51,000/- came to be awarded with proportionate costs and interest thereon @7.5% from the date of petition till the date of judgment. 2. For convenience sake, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. Facts leading to filing of present appeal are as follows: 2 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.1556 of 2016 (a) On 17.12.2013 at 07.00 p.m., while deceased was going to Nandyal on motorcycle from his village, RTC bus bearing No. AP 29Z 2565 coming from Mydukur, dashed into the rear of the motorcycle, as a result of which deceased fell down and died on the spot. Based on the report, police registered Crime No.268 of 2013 against the driver of RTC bus for offence under Section 304(A) of IPC. (b) The deceased stated to be aged 33 years working as Civil Assistant Surgeon at ESI Hospital, Nandyala and earning about ₹40,179/- per month. In that background, parents and sister of deceased preferred the claim seeking compensation. (c) The respondent filed counter denying the manner in which accident occurred and rather that the accident took place because of the negligence of the deceased himself. The income, age also came to be denied and disputed. (d) Based on aforesaid pleadings, following issues came to be framed. 1. “Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of RTC bus bearing No.AP 29Z 2565 resulting the death of the deceased 3 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.1556 of 2016 by name Kataru Penchalaiah @ Vishnu on 18.12.2013? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief?” (e) On behalf of claimants, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 and C1 to C4 were marked. Respondent chose not to lead any evidence either oral or documentary. (f) The tribunal has decided the 1st issue in favour of claimants holding that the driver of RTC bus was rash and negligent in causing the accident. While dealing with second issue, the income of deceased came to be assessed based on Ex.A6 and C4 and arrived at ₹48,000/- per month. It had awarded future prospects at the rate of 50%. However, no deduction was made towards personal expenses. By applying multiplier of 16, loss of earnings came to be assessed. Further, the tribunal also awarded ₹20,000/- towards transportation, ₹15,000/- towards funeral expenses and ₹1,00,000/- towards love and affection as against the conventional heads. Thus, in total, a compensation of ₹93,51,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till deposit and the compensation has been apportioned amongst the claimants equally. 4 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.1556 of 2016 (g) Assailing the same, present appeal is preferred. 4. Heard Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned standing counsel appearing for appellant and Smt.M.M.Siri Pallavi, learned counsel, representing Sri Srinivas Ambati, learned counsel for claimants. 5. Learned counsel for appellant mainly contends that the income of deceased as assessed by tribunal at the rate of ₹48,000/- per month is without any basis and even as per Ex.A6, income of deceased was only ₹40,179/- and after statutory deduction, the income would come to ₹36,481. Further it is also contented that the income of deceased has to be assessed as on the date of accident, but the Tribunal has even factored the consequences of pay revision commission effected in the year 2014, which is perverse. Lastly, it is contended that the tribunal has awarded one lakh towards love and affection, which is excessive and the claimants are only entitled to conventional heads in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others1. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents/claimants tried to support the impugned award. 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 5 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.1556 of 2016 7. Perused the record. 8. The following points arise for our consideration: “1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in assessing the income of the deceased at the rate of ₹48,000/- per month and the compensation determined thereon is just and fair? 2. To what relief?” 9. The deceased admittedly was Government employee working as Assistant Civil Surgeon at ESI Hospital, Nandyal. In order to establish income, Exs.A6 and C4 have been marked, besides examining P.W.3, who was also working as Civil Assistant Surgeon. In her evidence, P.W.3 has categorically stated that as per Ex.A6 - salary certificate, the deceased was earning ₹40,179/- and however, due to recent revision of salaries on account of PRC, the deceased would be in a position to earn ₹57,296/-. The tribunal in the process of arriving at the income of deceased, though has referred to aforesaid aspect, besides that the deceased would also get additional income of about ₹5,000/- to ₹10,000/- per month on account of private practice from 05.00 p.m. to 09.00 p.m., has merely arrived at net income of ₹48,000/- per month. 6 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.1556 of 2016 10. In ordinary course, the deceased definitely would be entitled to revision of pay scale on account of PRC and that his income would have been higher than what he was drawing under Ex.A6 as on the date of accident, which we cannot lose sight of. Therefore, the Tribunal should have taken into consideration aforesaid factor as well for the purpose of determining the income. Having said that, the Tribunal seems to have factored the additional income on account of private practice, for which there exists no evidence. 11. Further, the deceased being government servant, it is not permissible under service rules for him to get engaged in private practice, thus, we are of the view that the said additional income cannot be factored at all. Therefore, the Tribunal should have arrived at the gross income of the deceased taking into consideration the revised pay scales and thereafter applied appropriate statutory deduction. The net effect of the same, in our opinion, more or less would lead us to the figure of ₹48,000/- per month. 12. The Tribunal has committed a glaring error in the process of deducting personal expenses of the deceased. The net income of deceased was arrived at ₹48,000/- per month and 50% 7 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.1556 of 2016 of the same i.e., ₹24,000/- was assumed towards future prospects. Instead of arriving at the total earnings of the deceased on annual basis, by adding up the net income per month and 50% of the same as future prospects and thereafter applying the deduction towards personal expenses, strangely Tribunal has set off the addition of future prospects with the deduction towards personal expenses. In the said process, the annual income of deceased has been assessed as ₹5,76,000/- whereas the annual income that would emerge from aforesaid workings would be only ₹4,32,000/-. 13. Though learned counsel for appellant has not specifically pointed out the miscalculation part, we cannot be oblivious to the manifest error committed by Tribunal in computation of compensation. In respect of future prospects, age factor and multiplier, the Tribunal rightly applied the relevant factors. We find that towards conventional heads the amounts awarded are slightly in deviation. Therefore, we hereby revise the computation as under: Compensation Heads Amount Awarded In Accordance with: Monthly Income ₹48,000/- Yearly Income ₹5,76,000/- 8 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.1556 of 2016 Future Prospects (Age being 33 years) 50% of ₹5,76,000/- = ₹2,88,000/- National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 Para 37, 39, 41, 42 and 59.4 Deduction (1/2) 8,64,000 – 4,32,000 = ₹4,32,000/- Multiplier (16) 4,32,000 x 16 = ₹69,12,000/- Loss of Income of the deceased ₹69,12,000/- 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 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 India 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 ₹70,93,500/- 14. In the result, MACMA filed by the respondent/Corporation is allowed in part in the following terms: 9 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.1556 of 2016 i) The claimants/respondents are granted revised compensation of ₹70,93,500/- as just and fair, with interest @ 7.5% per annum thereon from the date of claim petition till realization; ii) The appellant 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. iii) On such deposit being made, the claimants shall be entitled to withdraw the same in equal proportions as per the award, failing which, the amount shall be recovered as per law. 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