APHC010776922016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2387 of 2016 Bench Sr.No:-46 [3584] The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Srikakulam ...Appellant Vs. Attada Chaturvedi, Vijayanagaram Dist. & Four Others ...Respondent(s) ********** CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 18th August 2026 Present: Advocate for Appellant: G. Haragopal Advocate for Respondents: Kuppili Venkata Ramana G. Sai Narayana Rao JUDGMENT:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) Insurer preferred present appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging award dated 17.05.2016 in M.V.O.P.No.302 of 2012 passed by learned I Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, by which claimants were awarded 2 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.2387 of 2016 compensation of Rs.31,85,264/- payable along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 2. For convenience sake, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case in a nutshell are as follows: (a) The deceased, Railway Station Master, was proceeding on his motorcycle and when he reached Cheepurupalli Village, driver of Auto (AP 35 U 7673), dashed his motorcycle. The deceased fell down and sustained bleeding injuries and was shifted to Government Hospital, Vizianagaram, and thereafter to Private Hospital at Visakhapatnam for better treatment. After undergoing treatment, he succumbed on the next day. The incident occurred on 04.08.2011. The deceased was aged 52 years and earning Rs.40,000/- per month. Therefore, son and Two daughters of the deceased preferred claim seeking compensation of Rs.40,00,000/-. (b) The driver and owner of offending Auto, arrayed as respondent Nos. 1 & 2, remained ex parte. The Insurer of Auto filed written statement denying the occurrence of accident and that the driver of offending vehicle was negligent in causing the 3 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.2387 of 2016 same, if any. Further, it was also pleaded that the driver of the Auto did not possess valid driving licence, fitness certificate and valid registration. Therefore, it amounted to violation of conditions of policy, thus denied any liability. Further, the avocation, age and income of deceased were also disputed. (c) Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal has framed following issues: 1) Whether the accident and death of the deceased viz., Attada Eswara Rao, is due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle (Auto) bearing No. AP 35 U 7673, which is not amounting to culpable homicide, by its driver? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation and if so, at what quantum and from which of the respondents? 3) To what relief? (d) The claimants examined PWs 1 to 3 and marked EXs.A1 to A4 and Exs.X1 to X3. For respondent No. 3/Insurer, RW1 & RW2 were examined and Ex.B1 and Exs.X1 & Ex.X5 marked. After analyzing the evidence on record, the Tribunal answered first issue in favour of claimants, holding that the deceased died on account of the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. 4 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.2387 of 2016 (e) The Tribunal, considering Ex.X3- salary certificate, assessed income of deceased as Rs.33,753/- after deducting the statutory deductions. Age of the deceased was determined as 52 years and accordingly, applied multiplier of 11. One-third of the income was deducted towards personal and living expenses, and assessed the loss of earnings. Tribunal also awarded Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection, in total awarded Rs.31,85,264/- as just and fair compensation, along with interest @ 9% per annum. (f) Assailing the same, present appeal is preferred. 4. Heard Sri G. Haragopal, learned counsel for appellant/Insurer, Sri Kuppili Venkata Ramana Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 & 3 and Sri G. Sai Narayana Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.3. 5. (a) Learned counsel for Insurer fairly submitted that though in the grounds of appeal, challenge laid was to the liability, due to march of law, none of the grounds would survive for consideration as the same stand settled. However, learned counsel tried to challenge the impugned award on the quantum. He contended that the Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased as 5 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.2387 of 2016 Rs.33,753/-, solely based on Ex.X3-salary slip and no other evidence, which is erroneous. (b) Further, the Tribunal awarded interest @ 9% per annum, which is excessive and not in commensurate with the rate of interest as presently being awarded by this Court as well as Hon’ble the Apex Court. It is also contended that the Tribunal has awarded various amounts under the conventional heads, which are not in consonance with the dicta laid down by Hon’ble the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others1. 6. (a) Conversely, learned counsel for claimants supported the impugned award. It is contended that the Tribunal has rightly determined the income of deceased based on Ex.X3-salary slip, which is a valid piece of evidence inasmuch as the deceased was a Government employee working as a Railway Station Master in the East Coast Railways and the same is also corroborated by the evidence of PW2-co-employee in the same organization. It is submitted that even the service register of deceased was also marked as Ex.X2. Therefore, on overall appreciation of evidence 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 6 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.2387 of 2016 on record, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of deceased. (b) However, learned counsel pointed out that the Tribunal has failed to award future prospects considering the age and avocation of the deceased and it ought to have granted future prospects @ 15%. Insofar as grant of interest @ 9% per annum, he sought to justify the same. (c) Learned counsel submitted that even in absence of claimants preferring independent appeal or cross objections, nevertheless, the Appellate Court is always entitled to consider and determine just and fair compensation even while deciding the appeal of Insurer. Therefore, he would urge to determine just and fair compensation accordingly. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on The Divisional Manager, The New Indian Assurance Company Limited v. Emani Venkata Archana and four others2 7. We have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by both parties and perused the record. 8. Since there is no challenge to liability, we are proceeding to consider whether, in the facts and circumstances, the 2 2025 SCC OnLine AP 164 7 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.2387 of 2016 compensation determined by the Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable. 9. 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 endeavor 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 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 others3, by placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in N.Jayasree v. Cholamandalam Ms.General Insurance Company Limited4, Meena Pawaia v. Ashraf Ali5 and Smt.Anjali v. Lokendra Rathod. As the purport of compensation under Section 166 of the Act is to award just and fair compensation, this Court is granting the above reliefs to the 3MACMA No.934/2015, dated 09.01.2025 4(2022) 14 SCC 712 5(2021) 17 SCC 148 8 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.2387 of 2016 respondents/claimants by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 10. The deceased was working as a Railway Station Master. To support the same, PW2-Senior Clerk in the East Coast Railways was examined. Ex.X2-extract of service register and Ex.X3-salary certificate of the deceased for the month of July 2011 were marked. The Tribunal, on appreciation of aforesaid evidence, determined the income of deceased as Rs.33,753/- per month after statutory deductions. Except for contending that the income assessed is on higher side and that Ex.X3-salary certificate for the month of July 2011 alone could not be the basis for coming to such conclusion, the Insurer has not let in any other evidence to otherwise disprove the same. 11. The service register definitely establishes that deceased was a railway employee and the salary certificate produced for the month of July 2011 relates to the last salary drawn prior to the accident, which occurred on 04.08.2011. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. 12. As the Tribunal has not awarded future prospects following the ratio laid down by Hon’ble the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (mentioned supra-1), we award future prospects @ 15% and the 9 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.2387 of 2016 amounts awarded towards conventional heads are also required to be revised. Further we are also of the view that the interest awarded @ 9% per annum is excessive and thus, the same is revised to 7.5% per annum. 13. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the compensation is revised as under: Compensation Heads Amount Awarded In accordance with Monthly Income ₹33,753/- Yearly Income ₹4,05,036/- Future Prospects (Age being 52 years) 15% of ₹4,05,036/- = ₹60,755/- National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 Paras 37, 39, 41, 42 and 59.4 Deduction (1/3) ₹4,65,791/- - ₹1,55,263/- = ₹3,10,528/- Multiplier (11) ₹3,10,528/- x 11 = ₹34,15,808/- Loss of Income of the deceased ₹34,15,808/- 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 10 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.2387 of 2016 Ltd. And Ors. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1699 Para 34 Sadhana Tomar & Ors. Ashok Khushwaha & Ors. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 554 Para 17 Total ₹35,97,308/- 14. In the result, this appeal is disposed of in the following terms: i) The claimants/respondents are granted revised compensation of ₹35,97,308/- 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, 1st claimant (son) is entitled for an amount of ₹13,49,000/-, 2nd claimant (married daughter) is entitled for an amount of ₹8,99,308/- and 3rd claimant (unmarried daughter) is entitled for an amount of ₹13,49,000/-. 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. 11 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.2387 of 2016 iv) On such deposit being made, the claimants are entitled to withdraw their respective shares as per the apportionment made above. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending in this appeal, if any, shall stand closed. LISA GILL, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J ANS