APHC010676792017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1126 of 2017 Bench Sr.No:- 31 [3584] The New India Assurance Co Ltd., Mumbai ...Appellant Vs. Thatireddygari Indiramma and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 10th August 2026 Present: Advocate for Appellant: MRS. T V SRI DEVI Advocate for Respondent: MR.P JAGADISH CHANDRA PRASAD *** JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) Insurer preferred present appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”), questioning quantum of compensation determined in the award, dated 03.02.2017, passed in M.V.O.P.No.139 of 2014 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, (for short, “the Tribunal”). 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. 2 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. No.1126 of 2017 3. Deceased was a police constable and aged about 45 years as on the date of occurrence of accident, i.e., on 01.06.2013. He was earning income of Rs.27,779/- p.m. In the course of discharge of official duties, deceased was proceeding on a two-wheeler to pick up files from Madanapalle Court; en-route, he met with an accident on account of the offending tractor and trailer bearing registration Nos.TN 23C-5648 and AP.03.AQ.4738 respectively, driven by its driver, dashed against motorcycle. Deceased sustained fatal injuries and was taken to Area Hospital, Madanapalle and thereafter, shifted to SVRR Hospital, Tirupati, and further, to Vijaya Hospital, Chennai for better treatment, where he succumbed to injuries. 4. The Tribunal has held that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of offending tractor. The findings were rendered based on the evidence of PW.2, eyewitness to the incident, and Exs.A1 to A.4. The income of deceased has been assessed as Rs.27,779/- p.m. based on Ex.A5 salary certificate and Ex.A6 Form-16, income-tax return. Considering the age of deceased as 45 years, Tribunal applied multiplier of 14. As there were three claimants – wife and two minor children, 1/3 of the income was deducted towards personal expenses. Tribunal has awarded future prospects at the rate of 50%. It has also awarded Rs.10,000/- towards transport 3 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. No.1126 of 2017 expenses; Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- towards clothes and articles; Rs.1,00,000/- towards consortium for 1st claimant; and Rs.1,00,000/- towards love and affection, thus, in total awarded Rs.49,11,072/- payable along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Tribunal further apportioned the aforesaid amount amongst claimants in the ratio mentioned in the award. Challenging the same, present appeal is preferred by the insurer. 5. Heard Mrs.T.V. Sri Devi, learned counsel for appellant-Insurer and Mr.K.P.R. Vital Kumar, representing Mr.P.Jagadish Chandra Prasad, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3/claimants. 6. The only point urged by learned counsel for insurer is that the quantum of compensation determined by Tribunal is excessive on account of awarding future prospects at the rate of 50% rather than 30% considering the age and avocation of deceased, following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi1. Further, it is submitted that the Tribunal has awarded consortium and other components under conventional heads on higher 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 4 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. No.1126 of 2017 side, which are not in consonance with the dicta laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi1. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for claimants tried to support the impugned award by contending that the compensation determined by Tribunal is just and fair and therefore, pleaded for dismissal of the appeal. 8. The Tribunal awarded future prospects at the rate of 50%. Rightly as contended by learned counsel for appellant-insurer, the Tribunal committed error in awarding future prospects at the rate of 50% rather than 30%. Further, even various amounts awarded under conventional heads also require to be revised following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi1. 9. Thus, we hereby modify the impugned award and grant just and fair compensation as detailed below. Compensation Heads Amount Awarded In Accordance with: Net annual income ₹27,779/- x 12 = ₹3,33,348/- Future Prospects (Age being 45 years) 30% of ₹3,33,348/- = ₹1,00,004/- National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 Para 37, 39, 41, 42 and 59.4 Deduction (1/3rd %) ₹4,33,352/- – ₹1,44,450/- =₹2,88,902/- Multiplier (14) ₹2,88,902/- x 14 = 5 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. No.1126 of 2017 ₹40,44,628/- Loss of Income of the deceased ₹40,44,628/- 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 3 = ₹1,45,200/- (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 2025 SCC OnLine SC 554 Para 17 Total ₹42,26,128/- 10. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of and the impugned order, dated 03.02.2017, shall stand modified, by revising the compensation amount to Rs.42,26,128/- as just and fair compensation, along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. thereon from the date of claim petition 6 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. No.1126 of 2017 till date of realisation. Out of which, 1st claimant is entitled to Rs.22,26,128/- and claimants 2 and 3 are entitled for Rs.10,00,000/- each. The appellant-Insurer to deposit the amount as aforesaid, 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 as apportioned above, failing which, the amount shall be recovered as per law. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. LISA GILL, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J cs