APHC010586472017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos:1485 AND 1633 OF 2017 Bench Sr.No:- 73 [3584] MACMA No.1485 of 2017: Ragipendi Saraswathi and another ...Appellant(s) Vs. Pidela Bhaskar Reddy and 3 Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Present: Advocate for Appellants: MR. V R REDDY KOVVURI Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): MR.SANJEEV GILLELA, MR.KURAPATI SRINIVASA RAO, REPRESENTING MR.KOTA SUBBA RAO *** CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 23rd July, 2026 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) Both these appeals - one preferred by claimants and the other by insurer - arise out of the very same judgment, dated 17.02.2017, in M.V.O.P.No.31 of 2011, of the IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa, FAC. Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Kadapa, (for short, “the Tribunal”), and the same are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. Nos.1485 & 1633 of 2017 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they were arrayed in the M.V.O.P. before the Tribunal. 3. M.A.C.M.A. No.1485 of 2017 is preferred by claimants seeking enhancement of compensation and whereas M.A.C.M.A.No.1633 of 2017 is preferred by insurer challenging the compensation so determined. 4. The facts relevant for disposal of these appeals are set out as under: (a) The deceased and his wife were returning from Bangalore Airport after dropping their son and en-route the Bolero jeep bearing registration No.AP 04TV 1035, in which they were travelling dashed against APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP 28Z 1001. The incident occurred on 05.09.2010 at about 3.30 A.M. and on account of the same, deceased, who was sitting at back side of driver of Bolero jeep, died instantaneously. The deceased was working as Deputy Executive Engineer and was aged about 54 years. Deceased’s wife, son and parents preferred claim for compensation of Rs.55,00,000/-. (b) The owner of Bolero remained ex parte. 3 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. Nos.1485 & 1633 of 2017 (c) The 2nd respondent insurer of Bolero filed written statement denying that the driver of Bolero was negligent. Further, 1st respondent misrepresented the insurer at the time of obtaining policy that it was a private vehicle and obtained private car policy without paying any additional premium to cover the risk of inmates, and besides also disputed the quantum of compensation. Further, it was also pleaded that the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP 28Z 1001 was negligent in causing the accident, and there was no fault on the part of the driver of the Bolero jeep. Even the quantum of compensation was also disputed and pleaded for dismissal of the claim. 5. Considering the respective pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: “1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of car bearing No.AP 04TV 1035 resulting the death of the deceased by name Ragipendi Siva Sankara Reddy on 5.9.2010? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? 6. In support of the claim, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 and Exs.X1 and X2 were marked. Likewise, on behalf of Insurer, RW.1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. 4 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. Nos.1485 & 1633 of 2017 7. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has answered the first issue in affirmative, holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligence of driver of Bolero jeep and thereby caused the death of the deceased. Dealing with the aspect of compensation, upon appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal has considered the income of deceased as Rs.47,456/- per month and accordingly, assessed the loss of earnings and also awarded various amounts towards loss of consortium and others, in total, awarded compensation of Rs.39,82,216/- payable along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. 8. Heard Mr.V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the claimants and Mr.Kurapati Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel, representing Mr.Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for the insurer. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the insurer contended that though 1st respondent had initially obtained a private car package policy under Ex.B1, which would only cover the driver of the car himself, suppressing the same, he had later obtained another policy under Ex.B2, dated 23.08.2011, by converting the existing car policy to passenger carrying policy covering the very same period, which was after occurrence of accident, therefore, but for such 5 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. Nos.1485 & 1633 of 2017 misrepresentation, insurer would not be liable under the fresh policy. The said aspect, according to learned counsel for insurer, was not properly appreciated by the Tribunal. Except for aforesaid contention, no other contention has been raised with regard to the quantum of compensation. 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimants while supporting the judgment of the Tribunal, to the extent of determining liability on the insurer, contended that insofar as the quantum, the Tribunal had failed to take into consideration granting of future prospects, erroneously deducted income tax which otherwise was already factored in. Further, under conventional heads, it is stated that the respective components are required to be revisited in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi1. Therefore, would urge to enhance the compensation by dismissing the appeal of the insurer and allowing the claimants appeal. 11. We have considered the rival submissions of both the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the record. 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 6 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. Nos.1485 & 1633 of 2017 12. The insurer preferred appeal only on the aspect of liability, and there is no challenge to the quantum of compensation. It is contended that findings of Tribunal on the aspect of confirming liability are perverse inasmuch as the evidence on record was not properly appreciated. As per the insurer, the original policy issued under Ex.B1 merely covered liability qua the driver of vehicle, as it was claimed to be private car, whereas, the second policy had covered even for passengers and that the same was obtained by misrepresentation. Dealing with the said aspect, the Tribunal has rendered specific finding that the insurer in the written statement has merely taken a plea that the 1st respondent had obtained private car policy without paying any additional premium to cover the risk of inmates, and later during the arguments, it tried to develop the case of misrepresentation, which cannot be permitted without proper pleading. We are in complete agreement with the view expressed by the Tribunal. The insurer should have taken a specific stand, much less as being argued at the very first instance of filing of the written statement or atleast later by filing additional written statement and definitely not during the arguments. Be that as it may, it is an admitted fact that there exists second policy under Ex.B2 covering the period of risk from 29.03.2010 to 28.03.2011, which covers even the inmates 7 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. Nos.1485 & 1633 of 2017 of the car, therefore, on the face of it, the insurer cannot deny the liability. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the aforesaid contention. 13. The Tribunal, while computing the quantum of compensation, considered the income of deceased as Rs.47,456/- and after deducting Rs.2,000/- towards income-tax, the net income has been arrived at Rs.45,456/-. We are of the view that under Ex.A3 salary certificate, the net salary has been indicated as Rs.47,456/-, therefore, further deduction of Rs.2,000/- towards income tax does not arise. Further, 1/3rd of it had been deducted towards personal expenses. However, future prospects were not granted, which we are awarding. The multiplier of 11 has been rightly applied. Towards consortium, the Tribunal has granted various amounts which are not in line with the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi1. Therefore, the same are being revised. Further, the Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 9% p.a., which, we are also revising to 7.5% p.a. 14. Thus, the compensation to be awarded to claimants is being revised as under: 8 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. Nos.1485 & 1633 of 2017 Compensation Heads Amount Awarded In Accordance with: Net annual income ₹47,456/- x 12 =Rs.5,69,472/- Future Prospects (Age being 54 years) 15% of ₹5,69,472/- = ₹85,420/- National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 Para 37, 39, 41, 42 and 59.4 Deduction (1/3) ₹6,54,892/- – ₹2,18,297/- = ₹4,36,595/- Multiplier (11) ₹4,36,595/- x 11 = ₹48,02,545/- Loss of Income of the deceased ₹48,02,545/- 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 Funeral expenses ₹18,150/- (with 10% increase every 3 years from 2017) Loss of Consortium ₹48,400 x 2 = ₹96,800/- (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 v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1699 Para 34 Sadhana Tomar v. Ashok Khushwaha 9 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. Nos.1485 & 1633 of 2017 2025 SCC OnLine SC 554 Para 17 Total ₹49,35,645/- 15. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A.No.1485 of 2017, preferred by the claimants, is allowed and the impugned judgment, dated 17.02.2017, shall stand modified, by revising the compensation amount to Rs.49,35,645/- as just and fair compensation. The Insurer to deposit the amount as aforesaid with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a., and costs, adjusting the amount already deposited/paid if any, before the Tribunal within one month. On such deposit being made, the claimants shall be entitled to withdraw the same in the proportion as per the Award, failing which, the amount shall be recovered as per law. 16. M.A.C.M.A.No.1633 of 2017, preferred by the insurer, is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in these appeals, if any, shall stand closed. LISA GILL, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J. cs