APHC010547952017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1694 of 2017 Bench Sr.No:-53 [3584] Oriental Insurance Company Limited ...Appellant Vs. A Jyothi and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 22nd July 2026 Present: Advocate for Appellant: P RAMANJANEYULU Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): D PURNACHANDRA REDDY, rep. by D.SANGEETHA REDDY JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) This appeal is preferred by appellant/insurer under Section 173 of M.V. Act, assailing the judgment and order dated 03.04.2017 in M.V.O.P. No.305 of 2011, passed by learned Principal District Judge, Chittoor, by which the compensation for a sum of ₹31,28,040/- came to be awarded with proportionate costs and interest thereon @7.5% from the date of petition till the date of deposit. 2. For convenience sake, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 2 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.1694 of 2017 3. (a) The deceased, coming in a car bearing Registration No.KA 53N 2537, was hit by a lorry bearing Registration No.AP 09T 2065 while reversing the same, on account of which, the inmate of car i.e., the deceased herein sustained severe bleeding injuries and succumbed. The other co-passenger was shifted to hospital for treatment. The said incident occurred on 07.11.2008 at about 11.00 p.m. near Gadanki Village, en route Tirupati to Chittoor. Police have registered case in Crime No.142 of 2008 against the driver of lorry for offences under Sections 304-A, 337, 338 and 279 IPC. (b) The deceased was aged about 34 years and having diploma in Auto Mobile Engineering and Auto CAD was working as Site Engineer with D.S.Gupta Constructions Pvt., Ltd., at Bangalore and earning a salary of ₹17,000/- per month. He was survived by wife, minor daughter and son, besides parents. Therefore, compensation was claimed by aforesaid persons for ₹39,00,000/-. (c) The driver of offending lorry remained ex parte. The insurer of the lorry and as well as the car filed respective written statements. Insurer of lorry had disputed the manner in which 3 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.1694 of 2017 accident occurred and that the driver of lorry was negligent, rather it has been pleaded that the inmate of car who was driving was negligent and did not maintain minimum distance between the lorry and car, therefore, as the car had hit the lorry from behind, the negligence was solely attributable to him but not the driver of the lorry. Besides the earnings and age, quantum of compensation also came to be disputed. The insurer of car has pleaded otherwise that the driver of lorry was negligent. (d) The tribunal has framed following issues: 1) Whether the accident in question occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 09T 2065 or the driver of the car bearing registration No.KA 53N 2537? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3) To what relief? (e) On behalf of claimants, wife of deceased was examined as P.W.1 and eye witness to the incident as P.W.2 and General Manager of the employer as P.W.3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of insurer of lorry, none were examined nor any documents were exhibited. 4 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.1694 of 2017 (f) After appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has decided the first issue in favour of the claimants holding that the driver of lorry was negligent in causing the accident. Coming to the second issue, the Tribunal has considered age of deceased as 34 years and having regard to the evidence of P.W.3, the income has been assessed as ₹16,800/- per month and after applying the deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses and awarding future prospects has assessed loss of earnings. Besides, the Tribunal also granted the consortium of ₹1,00,000/- for the wife, ₹1,00,000/- towards love and affection and ₹25,000/- towards funeral expenses, in all awarded compensation of ₹31,28,040/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. (g) Assailing the same, present appeal is filed. 4. Heard Sri Gudi Srinivasu, learned counsel, representing Sri P.Ramanjaneyulu, learned counsel for insurer and Smt.D.Sangeetha Reddy, learned counsel, representing Sri D.Purnachandra Reddy, learned counsel for claimants. 5 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.1694 of 2017 5. Learned counsel for appellant challenged the impugned award on two grounds. It is contented that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the driver of lorry was solely negligent and responsible for causing the accident, ignoring the other credible evidence on record which suggests that it was a case of contributory negligence as even the driver of car was also responsible for the accident. Further, with regard to the quantum of compensation, it is contended that Tribunal has awarded future prospects at the rate of 50%, rather ought to have granted only 40% in terms of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others1. 6. (a) Per contra, learned counsel, while supporting the impugned award, contented that the Tribunal has rightly rendered finding that the driver of lorry was negligent and in the absence of any other cogent material or evidence, it cannot be said that such finding of fact is perverse. Insofar as the quantum of compensation, she fairly admitted that the future prospects ought to have been granted at the rate of 40%, considering the fact that the deceased was a private employee, however Tribunal has awarded 50%. 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 6 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.1694 of 2017 (b) Learned counsel further submitted that the amounts that are awarded by Tribunal towards conventional heads require to be revised in terms of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi case1. 7. We have heard the counsels appearing for respective parties and perused the record. 8. Now, the question that falls for consideration of this Court is: 1. Whether there is any error or perversity in the order passed by the Tribunal in awarding compensation to the claimants as raised by the respondent/insurer and if so, to what extent it need to be revised? 2. To what relief? 9. The main contention of the appellant with regard to the liability factor is that even the driver of the car was also equally negligent in causing the accident, therefore, negligence could not be attributed solely to the driver of the lorry. The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence has come to conclusion that the driver of lorry was negligent in causing the accident. It had relied on the evidence of P.W.2, who spoke of the same, besides Ex.A3 - the charge sheet. Further, Tribunal also relied on Ex.A4, which is 7 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.1694 of 2017 Motor Vehicles Inspector report, as per which it was very much clear that there were no mechanical defects in either of the vehicles. Since aforesaid plea has been set up by the appellant, it is for it to prove by way of positive evidence that even the driver of a car was equally negligent in causing the accident. In order to prove the same, appellant had not let in any sort of evidence and even the driver of lorry was also not examined to prove its point. Therefore, the findings rendered by Tribunal, in our opinion, do not suffer from any perversity calling for interference in that regard. 10. Insofar as the other issue relating to the determination of compensation, as contended by learned counsel for appellant, the Tribunal fell in error by awarding 50% of the monthly earnings towards future prospects rather than 40%. That apart, the Tribunal has awarded various amounts towards conventional heads, which are not in consonance with the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi case1. 11. Here we are conscious of the fact that the claimants have not independently preferred any appeal nor chose to file cross-objection, however, following the co-ordinate Bench 8 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.1694 of 2017 judgment in the case of The National Insurance Company Limited v. E.Suseelamma and others2, we proceed to revise the quantum of compensation to be just and fair. The compensation therefore stands revised as under. Compensation Heads Amount Awarded In Accordance with: Monthly Income ₹16,800/- Yearly Income ₹2,01,600/- Less – Income Tax @20% ₹2,01,600/- - ₹40,320/- = ₹1,61,280/- Future Prospects (Age being 34 years) 40% of ₹1,61,280/- = ₹64,512/- National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 Para 37, 39, 41, 42 and 59.4 Deduction (1/4) ₹2,25,792/- – ₹56,448/- = ₹1,69,344/- Multiplier (16) ₹1,69,344/- x 16 = ₹27,09,504/- Loss of Income of the deceased ₹27,09,504/- 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 5 = ₹2,42,000/- (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. 2 MANU/AP/1282/2023 9 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.1694 of 2017 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1699 Para 34 Sadhana Tomar & Ors. Ashok Khushwaha & Ors. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 554 Para 17 Total ₹29,87,804/- 12. In the result, MACMA filed by the respondent/insurer is disposed of in the following terms: i) The claimants/respondents are granted revised compensation of ₹29,87,804/- 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 amount, the 1st claimant – wife is entitled for ₹10,77,804/-, 2nd and 3rd claimants – minor children of deceased are entitled for ₹4,78,000/- each, 4th claimant – father is entitled for ₹3,82,000/- and 5th claimant – mother is entitled for ₹5,72,000/-. iii) 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. 10 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.1694 of 2017 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