APHC010015142017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1581 of 2017 Bench Sr.No:-70 [3584] Guma Vijaya Lakshmi & 2 Others. ...Appellant(s) Vs. U. Venugopal and anr. ...Respondent(s) ********** CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 3rd September 2026 Present: Advocate for Appellants: MR. T C KRISHNAN Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): MR. GUDI SRINIVASU (R-2) *** JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) Claimant preferred present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”), dissatisfied with the award, dated 02.01.2017, passed in M.V.O.P.No.46 of 2015 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor (for short, “the Tribunal”), whereby compensation of ₹7,04,000/- was awarded, along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 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.1581 of 2017 3. (a) On 01.01.2014, at about 12.40 P.M., deceased, along with pillion rider, was proceeding on motorcycle, when they reached near Annamedu crossroads on N.H.5, car bearing registration No.KA 51 MC 9570, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against motorcycle. Both deceased and pillion rider fell down and sustained injuries. Deceased was shifted to Government Hospital at Naidupet, while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injuries. (b) The accident was reported to police, and Crime No.1 of 2014 was registered against driver of offending car for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and later, upon completion of investigation, police laid charge sheet. (c) Deceased claimed to be self-employed and earning ₹5,00,000/- per annum, thus, wife and two children preferred the claim seeking compensation. 4. 1st respondent, owner of offending car, remained ex parte. 5. 2nd respondent, insurer of offending car, filed written statement denying that accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending car and further that the said driver did not have valid and effective driving licence, besides was under influence of alcohol, hence, question of attributing any liability on insurer does not arise. The avocation, age and income of deceased were also denied. 3 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. No.1581 of 2017 6. Based on aforesaid pleadings, Tribunal framed following issues: “1. Whether the accident in question is caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Car bearing registration No.KA-51/MC- 9570 or the deceased himself drove the motorcycle bearing registration No.AP-26/AK-0601? 2. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 4.To what relief?” 7. In order to prove the case of claimants, PW.1 to PW.4 were examined, and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. None were examined on behalf of insurer, however, Ex. B1 policy was marked. 8. The Tribunal, having analysed evidence on record, held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending car. The claimants, though examined PW.3 and PW.4, who are attestor of lease agreement and owner of agricultural land, to establish that deceased was undertaking agricultural activity and earning about ₹5,00,000/- per annum, the same was disbelieved. However, the Tribunal, considering deceased to be an unskilled labourer, has determined his income at ₹3,500/- per month. Considering the age of deceased as 50 years, multiplier of 13 was applied. One-third of the same was deducted towards personal and living expenses and, accordingly, assessed the loss of income. The 4 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. No.1581 of 2017 Tribunal also awarded ₹10,000/- towards transport expenses, ₹25,000/- towards funeral expenses, ₹5,000/- towards clothes and articles, ₹1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, and ₹2,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection, thus, in all, ₹7,04,000/- was awarded along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 9. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation so awarded, present appeal is preferred by the claimants. 10. Heard Mr.T.C. Krishnan, learned counsel for claimants and Mr.Gudi Srinivas, learned counsel for insurer. 11. Learned counsel for claimants mainly contended that the Tribunal erred in disbelieving evidence of PW.3 and PW.4, coupled with Exs.A6, A8 and A9, which clearly demonstrated that deceased was earning ₹5,00,000/- per annum on agricultural operations, hence, income of deceased, as assessed by the Tribunal, is clearly unjustified and erroneous. He would further contend that even as per Ex.A6 lease agreement, deceased was paying ₹10,000/- per acre per annum towards lease rental, in total for an extent of Ac.14.81 cents, lease rental for ₹1,50,000/- was being paid, therefore, the income of deceased ought to be taken at least as ₹2,00,000/- per annum, after 5 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. No.1581 of 2017 deducting lease rentals. He further contended that the Tribunal erred in not granting future prospects. 12. Opposing the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for insurer tried to support impugned award and further contended that evidence led in by claimants since do not indicate that the lease rentals were in fact paid to owner of land and such payment receipts not being on record, evidence as adduced would be insufficient to prove that deceased was earning any income by cultivating lands of PW.4. Therefore, he would urge to dismiss the appeal. 13. We have given our anxious consideration to submissions made by learned counsels for parties and perused the record. 14. The only point that arises for our consideration is, as to whether the compensation determined by the Tribunal is just, fair, and reasonable. 15. Present appeal by claimants merely challenges the quantum of compensation as unjust. As there is no challenge to liability per se by the insurer, we would proceed to consider the issue on quantum of compensation alone. 6 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. No.1581 of 2017 16. Case of claimants, as pleaded before the Tribunal, is that deceased had entered into lease agreement, dated 02.09.2011, with PW.4 for cultivating an extent of Ac.14.81 cents, for a period of 5 years. Under the said lease agreement, it was agreed that deceased would pay ₹10,000/- per acre per annum as lease rental, and for first year of lease, deceased paid ₹1,50,000/-, which was accordingly acknowledged by PW.4, the landlord. PW.3 is one of attestors to lease agreement. Further, claimants also exhibited Ex.A7, loan eligibility card issued by Mandal Revenue Inspector, Kota, Ex.A8, statement of loan account from Syndicate Bank, Kota Branch, and Ex.A9, loan application. 17. The evidence of PW.3 categorically goes to show that he witnessed the execution of Ex.A6 lease agreement and that deceased had been cultivating lands as mentioned therein. Further, PW.4 landlord, also corroborated the same version. He further stated that deceased was in continuous possession of the subject land till the date of death and deceased even paid the lease rentals regularly. The first- year lease amount of ₹1,50,000/- was duly paid. Though both these witnesses were cross-examined by insurer, nothing contrary has been elicited to disbelieve their testimony. Further, loan application and loan statement produced indicate that deceased has availed loan of 7 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. No.1581 of 2017 ₹1,00,000/-, of which ₹50,000/- was disbursed to him on 14.09.2011 and the second ₹50,000/- on 23.01.2012. The deceased has repaid first loan amount on 11.01.2012 and the second loan amount on 09.07.2012. Further, deceased has once again availed loan of ₹90,000/- on 11.07.2012. Ultimately, loan account came to be settled in the month of September, 2016 after deceased passed away. 18. The Tribunal has disbelieved aforesaid evidence, and it had observed that claimants have not produced any document to show that the deceased had paid lease rental to PW.4 landlord, except lease agreement under Ex.A6. We are of the view that Tribunal was incorrect in saying so, for the reason that insofar as first year's lease rental was concerned, Ex. A6 itself confirms that the same was paid and accepted by PW.4. Even, PW.4 in his evidence has clearly admitted the factum of receiving lease rentals of ₹1,50,000/- for first year, and further he also stated that deceased was regularly paying lease rentals up to date. The loan statement also corroborates the stand of claimants that deceased was actively pursuing agricultural operations, that he had been availing agricultural loan from time to time and repaying the same, as mentioned above. Considering the totality of circumstances and chain of events, the existence of lease agreement corroborated by landlord as well as one of the witnesses to 8 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. No.1581 of 2017 the same, besides producing agricultural loan statement from the Bank, impliedly confirms that deceased had agricultural income. The mere fact that the deceased used to pay ₹1,50,000/- per annum towards lease rentals itself demonstrates that he definitely could have been earning and making a decent living. When there is sufficient and ample evidence on record, the Tribunal committed serious error in discarding the same and rather proceeding to determine the income of deceased on notional basis, considering him as an agricultural labourer. Though learned counsel for claimants urged to determine the income of deceased at ₹2,00,000/- per annum after deducting lease rentals, considering age of deceased and his knowledge and experience in undertaking agricultural operations, the extent of land under lease, we feel it appropriate to fix the income of deceased at ₹15,000/- per month. 19. Since there is no dispute with regard to other aspects of the matter, age, multiplier and deduction of 1/3rd of income towards personal and living expenses, the same are sustained. We further award future prospects at the rate of 10%, and also revise various amounts of compensation towards conventional heads to be in tune 9 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. No.1581 of 2017 with the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi1. 20. The claimants, therefore, are entitled to just and fair compensation as under: Compensation Heads Amount Awarded In Accordance with: Net annual income ₹15,000/- x 12 ₹1,80,000/- Future Prospects (Age being 50 years) 10% of ₹1,80,000/- = ₹18,000/- National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 Para 37, 39, 41, 42 and 59.4 Deduction (1/3) ₹1,98,000 – ₹66,000 = ₹1,32,000/- Multiplier (13) ₹1,32,000/- x 13 = ₹17,16,000/- Loss of Income of the deceased ₹17,16,000/- 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. 1(2017) 16 SCC 680 10 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. No.1581 of 2017 Ashok Khushwaha 2025 SCC OnLine SC 554 Para 17 Total ₹18,97,500/- 21. Accordingly, appeal is disposed of. The impugned award, dated 02.01.2017, shall stand modified, by revising the compensation amount to Rs.18,97,500/- as just and fair compensation, along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. thereon from the date of claim petition till date of realisation. Out of which, 1st claimant is entitled to Rs.12,97,500/- and claimants 2 and 3 are entitled to Rs.3,00,000/- each. The 2nd respondent 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