APHC010804712016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NOs: 2446 of 2016 & 1180 of 2017 Bench Sr.No:-29 [3584] APSRTC ...Appellant Vs. Mavilla Sujeevana and others ...Respondent(s) ********** CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 11th August 2026 Present: Advocate for claimants: MADHAVA RAO NALLURI Advocate for Respondent: PENUMAKA VENKAT RAO COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) Both these appeals are preferred under Section 173 of the M.V.Act, assailing the very same judgment and decree dated 21.04.2016 in M.V.O.P. No.60 of 2014 on the file of learned VI Additional District Judge, SPSR Nellore District. 2. M.A.C.M.A. No.2446 of 2011 is preferred by APSRTC (herein after, called as ‘Corporation’) and whereas M.A.C.M.A. No.1180 of 2017 is preferred by claimants. The Corporation challenged the award both on liability as well as quantum of 2 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA Nos.2446 of 2016 & 1180 of 2017 compensation. The claimants, on the other hand, are seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. For convenience sake, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 4. (a) Deceased was working as Secondary Grade Teacher in MPPPS School, East Harijanawada, Rebala Village, Buchireddypalem Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. On 15.01.2014, the deceased, along with his friend, was proceeding on motorcycle to attend the obsequies of his Junior Paternal Uncle, which was performed at Badvelu, en route, on Nellore - Mumbai Highway, near Sangam Village, at about 15.45 hours bus belonging to respondent corporation driven by its driver dashed against motorcycle, on account of which the deceased who was riding the bike fell down and sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. Friend of deceased also suffered injuries and he was shifted to hospital for treatment. (b) The deceased stated to have been earning ₹40,000/- per month, therefore, wife, two children and mother of deceased preferred claim before the Tribunal claiming compensation of ₹40,00,000/-. 3 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA Nos.2446 of 2016 & 1180 of 2017 (c) The respondent Corporation filed written statement denying the liability, that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending bus. It was also pleaded that the deceased was riding bike in rash and negligent manner at high speed, though the driver of the bus tried to slow down the bus and took extreme left side of the road, nevertheless, the bike dashed into the bus, therefore, the rider of motorcycle alone was responsible for causing the accident. Besides the avocation, age and earnings of deceased were denied and disputed. (d) The tribunal framed following issues: (1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 29Z 0741? (2) Whether the accident occurred due to the negligence of driver of motor cycle bearing No.AP 26 AN 0648? (3) Whether the rider of the motor cycle bearing No.AP 26AN 0648 is not possessing valid and effective driving licence to drive the motorcycle? (4) Whether the owner and insurer of the MotorCycle bearing No.AP 26AN 0648 are proper and necessary parties to the proceedings? (5) Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation? If so to what amount? (6) To what relief? 4 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA Nos.2446 of 2016 & 1180 of 2017 (e) Claimants examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 and Ex.X1. For respondent Corporation, RW.1 was examined and no documents were marked. (f) The Tribunal, on overall appreciation of evidence on record, held that the driver of offending vehicle was responsible for accident due to his negligence. Further, though corporation has set up plea of contributory negligence attributable to the deceased rider, due to lack of sufficient evidence, the same has been repelled. (g) Based on Ex.A6 - salary certificate and Ex.X1, the Tribunal has assessed income of deceased as ₹46,060/- per month. The age of deceased was considered as 51 years, accordingly, applied multiplier of 11. 1/4th of the income has been deducted towards personal expenses. The Tribunal also awarded ₹1,00,000/- towards consortium, ₹2,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance and ₹25,000/- towards funeral expenses. After deducting 10% of the earnings towards income tax, in total, Tribunal awarded ₹43,28,946/- as just and fair compensation, along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. (h) Assailing the same, both the corporation as well as claimants preferred respective appeals. 5 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA Nos.2446 of 2016 & 1180 of 2017 5. Heard Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri, learned counsel for claimants and Sri Penumaka Venkat Rao, learned counsel for respondent Corporation. 6. Learned counsel for Corporation contended that the findings of Tribunal suffer from perversity on account of non-appreciation of the evidence on record. Further, it is also contended that the Tribunal has assessed income of deceased as ₹46,060/- per month, which is also not supported by proper evidence. Therefore, the compensation determined is on higher side. 7. (a) Per contra, learned counsel for claimants, while supporting the impugned award to the extent of the findings with regard to the dismissal of plea regarding the contributory negligence, insofar as the findings and conclusions arrived at with regard to the determination of compensation, it is contended that the Tribunal erroneously considered the age of deceased as 51 and applied multiplier of 11. The Tribunal having referred to the age of deceased as 50 years 6 months 14 days, ought to have considered the age for the purpose of applying multiplier as 50, following the ratio laid down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation1 and thereafter applied multiplier of 13. 1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 6 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA Nos.2446 of 2016 & 1180 of 2017 (b) Further, the Tribunal also failed to award future prospects and that in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others2, the future prospects at the rate of 30% to be awarded, having regard to the age and avocation of the deceased. Even with regard to various components under the conventional heads, the amounts awarded by Tribunal are also required to be revised in tune with judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case2. (c) Learned counsel for claimants further contended that the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the income of deceased as ₹55,690/-, as per the latest PRC, but not ₹46,060/-. 8. We have considered submissions made by respective counsels and also gone through the material on record. 9. Now, the question that falls for consideration of this Court is: 1. Whether the order passed by the Tribunal suffers from patent illegality or perversity in awarding compensation to the claimants and, if so, what is the just and fair compensation to be awarded? 2. To what relief? 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680 7 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA Nos.2446 of 2016 & 1180 of 2017 10. The accident occurred on account of collision between the motorcycle and bus belonging to the Corporation. The deceased was riding the motorcycle, accompanied by his friend as pillion rider, who was examined as P.W.2. As per the claim of claimants and evidence of P.W.2, the bus coming in opposite direction dashed against motorcycle. No doubt the accident occurred while both the vehicles were crossing the curve. The evidence marked on behalf of claimants by way of Ex.A1 – FIR and Ex.A5 - charge sheet indicates that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus, who was arrayed as accused in the crime. 11. Conversely, the Corporation pleaded that the driver of bus slowed down the bus, nevertheless, the biker dashed into the bus, therefore, negligence, if any, would be attributable only to the deceased rider. To support the said version, the driver of bus was examined as R.W.1. Except for his statement, no other evidence, such as that of any of the passengers in the bus, was adduced to support and corroborate the version of the driver of bus. Further, as rightly found by the Tribunal, the respondent Corporation also did not file any rough sketch to show that the bus had slowed down and the driver had taken extreme left of the road. Since the plea of 8 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA Nos.2446 of 2016 & 1180 of 2017 contributory negligence was raised by the Corporation, it is for it to prove the same. The Tribunal, on overall appreciation of the evidence, ultimately found that the driver of bus was alone negligent and responsible in causing the accident. We do not see any infirmity with such finding, nor there is any cogent evidence for us to come to any other conclusion. 12. Now, coming to the aspect of income of deceased, the Tribunal has considered the same as ₹46,060/- as per Ex.A6 and Ex.X1. Ex.X1 is the service register of the deceased and Ex.A6 is salary certificate. Though P.W.3, in her evidence, stated that the salary of deceased after revised pay scales at relevant point of time would be ₹55,690/-, the service register of the deceased marked as Ex.X1 merely indicated that the deceased was earning ₹44,870/- as on 01.07.2013 and after effecting increment, the same was revised to ₹46,060/-. The Tribunal, after analysing the evidence on record, assessed aforesaid income. We have also gone through the contents of Ex.A6 and Ex.X1 and as well as the evidence of P.W.3. Except for the self-serving statement of P.W.3 that deceased would get salary of ₹55,690/-, there is nothing on record to suggest the same, on contra, Ex.X1 and Ex.A6 clearly demonstrate that deceased was drawing a salary of ₹46,060/-. 9 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA Nos.2446 of 2016 & 1180 of 2017 Thus, we sustain the income of the deceased as determined by the Tribunal. 13. Basing on the pay slip supported by Ex.X1 service register, we arrived at the income of the deceased as ₹46,060/-. We haven’t provided any deduction of income tax as per the pay slip, however, are inclined to apply the deduction based on the relevant period slab rate. Since deceased died on 15.01.2014, we consider it apt to apply the tax rate as applicable for assessment year 2014-15 (Financial Year – 2013-14). Income Tax Computation – Assessment Year 2014-2015 Financial Year 2013-2014 Monthly income ₹46,060.00 Annual income (₹29,752 × 12) ₹5,52,720.00 Tax Slab Rate Taxable Amount Tax Up to ₹2,00,000 0% ₹2,00,000.00 ₹0.00 ₹2,00,000 to ₹5,00,000 10% ₹3,00,000.00 ₹30,000.00 Income above ₹5,00,000 20% ₹52,720.00 ₹10,544.00 Total tax ₹40,544.00 14. The Tribunal, however, has not granted future prospects, which we thus allow at the rate of 30%. The age of deceased was considered as 51 years, which is improper, rather the age of 10 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA Nos.2446 of 2016 & 1180 of 2017 deceased would be 50 years, therefore, the proper multiplier would be 13 for assessing the loss of income. 15. Therefore, the compensation stands revised as under: Compensation Heads Amount Awarded In accordance with Monthly Income ₹46,060/- Yearly Income ₹5,52,720/- Less – Income Tax ₹5,52,720/- - ₹40,544/- = ₹5,12,176/- Future Prospects (Age being 50 years) 30% of ₹5,52,720/- = ₹1,65,816/- National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 Paras 37, 39, 41, 42 and 59.4 Deduction (1/4) ₹6,77,992/- - ₹1,69,498/- = ₹5,08,494/- Multiplier (13) ₹5,08,494/- x 13 = ₹66,10,422/- Loss of Income of the deceased ₹66,10,422/- 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 4 = ₹1,93,600/- (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 11 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA Nos.2446 of 2016 & 1180 of 2017 Sadhana Tomar & Ors. Ashok Khushwaha & Ors. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 554 Para 17 Total ₹68,40,322/- 16. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. No.2446 of 2016 preferred by respondent Corporation is dismissed and M.A.C.M.A. No.1180 of 2017 preferred by claimants is allowed in part in the following terms: i) The claimants are granted revised compensation of ₹68,40,322/- as just and fair, with interest @ 7.5% per annum thereon from the date of claim petition till realization; ii) The entire revised compensation amount shall be distributed equally among all the claimants. iii) The Corporation 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. 12 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA Nos.2446 of 2016 & 1180 of 2017 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this case, if any, shall stand closed. LISA GILL, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J SS