APHC010262152016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2738 of 2016 Bench Sr.No:-50 [3584] National Insurance Company Ltd., ...Appellant Vs. Kattunga Venkata Rao 4 Others and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 12th August 2026 Present: Advocate for Appellant: S A V RATNAM Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): SIVA SURYA KUMAR MUSUNURI JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) Insurer preferred present appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act, assailing the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2016 in M.V.O.P. No.620 of 2012 passed by learned V Additional District Judge, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry, by which compensation of ₹57,05,000/- was awarded along with interest @6% per annum. 2 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.2738 of 2016 2. For convenience sake, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. (a) The deceased, aged 22 years, was Engineering Graduate and further pursuing Post Graduation i.e., M.Tech. Engineering. While so, she was offered employment by IBM India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore, as a research engineer. Due to her misfortune, while she proceeding on a motorbike as pillion rider, was hit by offending Mahindra Bolero vehicle bearing Registration No.KL 11AB 8442 and thus, she succumbed due to injuries. The parents and sister of deceased preferred claim for compensation. The deceased already had an offer letter with an annual salary package of ₹6,92,128/-, which translated to ₹57,677/- per month, accordingly, compensation of ₹86,00,000/- was claimed. (b) The driver and owner of offending vehicle remained ex parte. The 3rd respondent – insurer filed written statement contesting the claim. The liability as well as quantum of compensation were disputed on several grounds. (c) Based on aforesaid pleadings, Tribunal framed following issues: 1. Whether the death of the deceased was caused in motor vehicle accident on account of rash and negligent driving 3 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.2738 of 2016 by the driver of vehicle Mahindra Bolero Goods truck bearing No.KL 11AB 8442? 2. Whether the petition is liable to be dismissed for non- joinder of necessary parties, i.e., owner and insurer of motor vehicle? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and against which respondent? 4. To what relief? (d) Claimants examined PWs.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A1 to A10. None were examined for 3rd respondent. However, Ex.B1 was marked. The Tribunal held first issue in favour of the claimants, holding that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent - driver of offending vehicle. Though the claimants have adduced evidence under Exs.A7 to A10, to substantiate educational qualifications, employment offered by IBM India Private Limited and the joining letter, the Tribunal has considered income of deceased as ₹25,000/- per month on notional basis. Future prospects were awarded @50% and after deducting 30% towards personal expenses and applying multiplier of 18, loss of earnings were assessed. Tribunal also awarded ₹25,000/- towards funeral expenses and ₹10,000/- towards 4 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.2738 of 2016 transportation expenses, thus, in total, awarded compensation of ₹56,70,000/-, payable along with interest @6% per annum. (e) Assailing the same, present appeal is preferred. 4. Heard Smt.S.A.V.Ratnam, learned counsel appearing for insurer and Sri Siva Surya Kumar Musunuri, learned counsel appearing for claimants. 5. Learned counsel for appellant urged that the Tribunal erred in deducting 30% of income towards personal expenses rather than 50% as the deceased was unmarried. Except for the said ground, no other arguments advanced either on the aspect of liability or otherwise. 6. (a) Per contra, learned counsel for claimants fairly conceded the ground urged above. However, it is contented that the Tribunal has assessed income of deceased as ₹25,000/- per month on notional basis, despite availability of sufficient evidence on record indicating the Salary package already offered by IBM India Private Limited, therefore, urged to determine the income considering Exs.A8 to A10. (b) The learned counsel also submitted that though the claimants did not prefer appeal or cross objections, this Court, while deciding the appeal of insurer, is amply empowered to award 5 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.2738 of 2016 1 2025 SCC OnLine AP 164 just and fair compensation. In support, he placed reliance on judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in The Divisional Manager, The New Indian Assurance Company Limited v. Emani Venkata Archana and four others1. 7. We have given our anxious consideration to the submission made by both parties and perused the record. 8. Now, the question that falls for consideration of this Court is: 1) Whether the Tribunal committed any error in fixing the quantum of compensation and if so, whether the claimants are entitled for just and fair compensation? 2) To what relief? 9. Since the ground urged by learned counsel for insurer has been fairly conceded by the claimants, the grievance of insurer stands addressed. 10. We now proceed to determine as to whether the claimants are entitled for just and fair compensation under law. It is settled law that the claimants are entitled for just and fair compensation and that endeavour should be made by the Court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of the fact the claimants had not preferred any appeal for enhancement or filed cross-objections in the appeal filed by either insurance company or owner. Coordinate 6 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.2738 of 2016 2 2025 SCC OnLine AP 164 3 (2022) 14 SCC 712 4 (2021) 16 SCC 467 5 (2021) 17 SCC 148 6 (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1682 Bench of this Court had summed up the law on this aspect recently in The Divisional Manager, The New Indian Assurance Company Limited v. Emani Venkata Archana and four others2 , by placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in N.Jayasree v. Cholamandalam Ms.General Insurance Company Limited3, Surekha v. Santosh4, Meena Pawala v. Ashraf Ali5 and Smt.Anjali v. Lokendra Rathod6. As the purport of compensation under Section 166 of the Act is to award just and fair reasonable compensation, this Court is granting the above reliefs to the respondents/claimants by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11. Coming to the aspect of income of the deceased, the Tribunal assessed income of deceased as ₹25,000/- per month on notional basis, considering the deceased was a post graduate in Engineering. The claimants have produced Ex.A8 - computerised copy of joining letter in IBM, Ex.A9 – computerised copy of confirmation letter in IBM in favour of deceased and Ex.A10 – computerised copy of expiry letter from IBM regarding the offer extended. The contents and substratum of the said letters have not 7 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.2738 of 2016 been denied and doubted by the Insurer, except for pleading that mere issuance of an offer letter would not render the deceased an employee of IBM India Pvt. Ltd., therefore, offering of annual package of ₹6,92,128/- has no consequence. 12. Aforesaid piece of evidence demonstrates the core strength and potential of deceased in her career progression. Definitely, she had brighter future prospects. Merely because the deceased turned down the offer, the same would not undermine her skill and capability to perform the functions of research engineer. We, therefore, find no justification for the Tribunal to discard above evidence and rather assess income on notional basis. Therefore, we consider the monthly earnings of the deceased as ₹57,667/- per month. 13. As we haven’t provided any deduction towards income tax, are inclined to apply the deduction based on the relevant period slab rate. Since deceased died on 08.05.2011, we consider it apt to apply the tax rate as applicable for assessment year 2012-13 (Financial Year – 2011-12). Income Tax Computation – Assessment Year 2012-2013 Financial Year 2011-2012 Monthly income ₹57,677.00 Annual income (₹57,677 × 12) ₹6,92,124.00 8 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.2738 of 2016 7 (2017) 16 SCC 680 Tax Slab Rate Taxable Amount Tax Up to ₹1,80,000 0% ₹1,80,000.00 ₹0.00 ₹1,80,001 to ₹5,00,000 10% ₹3,20,000.00 ₹32,000.00 Income above ₹5,00,000 20% ₹1,92,124.00 ₹38,424.00 Total tax ₹70,424.00 14. So far as future prospects and multiplier, the Tribunal has rightly applied the same. As deceased was unmarried, half of the income will have to be deducted towards personal expenses. Other components constituting conventional heads also required to be revised in line with the dicta laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others7. 15. Accordingly, the compensation stands revised as under: Compensation Heads Amount Awarded In accordance with Monthly Income ₹57,677/- Yearly Income ₹6,92,124/- Less – Income Tax ₹6,92,124/- - ₹70,424/- = ₹6,21,700/- Future Prospects (Age being 22 years) 50% of ₹6,21,700/- = ₹3,10,850/- National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 Paras 37, 39, 41, 42 and 59.4 Deduction (1/2) ₹9,32,550/- - ₹4,66,275/- = ₹4,66,275/- Multiplier (18) ₹4,66,275/- x 18 = ₹83,92,950/- Loss of Income of the deceased ₹83,92,950/- 9 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.2738 of 2016 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. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1699 Para 34 Sadhana Tomar & Ors. Ashok Khushwaha & Ors. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 554 Para 17 Total ₹85,74,450/- 16. In the result, this appeal is disposed of in the following terms: i) The claimants are granted revised compensation of ₹85,74,450/- as just and fair, with interest @ 6.5% per annum thereon from the date of claim petition till realization; ii) Out of the revised compensation, 1st claimant (father) is entitled for an amount of ₹30,06,000/-, 2nd claimant (mother) is entitled for an amount of ₹54,93,450/- and 3rd claimant (sister) is entitled for an amount of ₹75,000/-. 10 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.2738 of 2016 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