APHC010578612017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2364 of 2017 AND I.A. No.6 OF 2017 (XOBJ No.38828 OF 2017) Bench Sr.No:-67 [3584] United India Insurance Company Ltd., Karimnagar Dist ...Appellant Vs. Jakkula Nirmala Kurnool Dist and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 8th September 2026 Present: Advocate for Appellant: S PRANATHI, rep. by G.JAHNAVI Advocate for Respondent: D BHASKAR YADAV COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) Insurer preferred present appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, assailing the judgment and award dated 11.05.2017 in M.V.O.P. No.158 of 2015 passed by learned IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool, determining the compensation in favour of the claimants. After preferring the present appeal, even the respondents/claimants also filed cross-objections vide I.A. No.6 of 2 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.2364 of 2017 & I.A.No.6 of 2017 2017 (XOBJ No.38828 of 2017), seeking enhancement of compensation, thus, are heard and disposed by the present order. 2. For convenience sake, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. (a) The deceased was working as Assistant Manager in a private warehousing company and was aged about 46 years on the date of accident. He was earning ₹9,532/- per month as salary and also had agricultural income of ₹90,000/- per annum. On 15.11.2014, the deceased was proceeding on motorcycle to attend duties, en route, he was hit by Maruti Alto (AP 09BB 1646), driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner, resultantly, he suffered injuries and succumbed. Crime No.615 of 2014 was registered for offences under Sections 337 and 304(A) of IPC against the driver of offending car, later, charge sheet was laid. (b) In that background, wife, two daughters and son preferred claim seeking compensation. 1st respondent, driver of car, filed written statement denying that he was negligent in causing the accident, so also any liability. 2nd respondent - owner of car, also filed written statement in similar lines. The insurer of car - 3rd respondent, in the written statement, denied that accident occurred on account of negligence of driver of the offending vehicle. Further, it was also pleaded that the offending vehicle was 3 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.2364 of 2017 & I.A.No.6 of 2017 in the name of Dr.P.Archana and also insurance, the same were not yet transferred in the name of subsequent purchaser, therefore, the liability was disputed. The income, avocation and age were also disputed. (c) Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed following questions: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Maruti Alto LXI BSIII bearing registration No.AP 09BB 1646? 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to claim compensation of ₹48,00,000/- or to what just amount and from whom the same shall be recovered? 3. To what relief? (d) Claimants examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A1 to A7 and Exs.X1 to X3. None were examined for respondents, however, Ex.B1 was marked. (e) On appreciation of evidence on record, the Tribunal answered first issue in affirmative, holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending car. In regard to the compensation, based on Ex.A7 – salary slip, monthly salary was assessed at ₹9,532/-. Further, based on Exs.A9 and A10, the agricultural income was assessed as ₹90,000/- per annum, thus, in total monthly income was assessed as ₹17,032/-. Future prospects were awarded at the rate of 30%, 1/4th of the same was directed towards personal and living expenses. Considering the age of deceased as 46, multiplier of 13 4 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.2364 of 2017 & I.A.No.6 of 2017 was applied. Accordingly, loss of income was assessed. Tribunal also awarded ₹10,000/- towards loss of estate, ₹10,000/- towards funeral expenses and ₹10,000/- towards consortium, thus, in total awarded ₹26,20,536/-, rounded off to ₹26,20,500/-, along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. (f) Assailing the same, the insurer preferred present appeal, and the claimants filed cross-objections seeking enhancement. 4. (a) At the outset, learned counsel for insurer fairly stated that the appeal merely challenges the quantum of compensation and not the liability per se. She contended that the Tribunal has assessed income of deceased at ₹17,032/-, which consists of ₹9,532/- as salary income and the rest as agricultural income, which has no basis. (b) It is also contended that in absence of any evidence to show that deceased was having agricultural income, the Tribunal ought not to have factored the same as income. Even otherwise, mere holding of agricultural land would not be sufficient to presume that there exists agricultural income, rather, the claimants would only be entitled to claim for the managerial skills of the deceased, but not to the entire income. (c) She further contends that future prospects have been awarded at the rate of 30%, rather, considering the age of deceased as 46, it ought to be merely 25%. 5 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.2364 of 2017 & I.A.No.6 of 2017 5. Per contra, learned counsel for claimants contended that the Tribunal has considered far less income than the deceased was earning and the evidence in that regard was not properly appreciated. He further contended that the amounts awarded under different components of conventional heads are not in consonance with the dicta laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others1, therefore, urged to revise the compensation. 6. We have gone through the record and considered the submissions made above. 7. The deceased was working as manager in warehousing company, which is no doubt a private entity. In order to prove the income of deceased, the claimants relied on Ex.A7 - salary slip indicating the income as ₹9,532/- per month. Learned counsel for insurer, except stating that the salary certificate by itself would not be valid piece of evidence to arrive at the income of deceased, could not point out any material which disproves the same or suggests otherwise. 8. Further, insofar as agricultural income is concerned, claimants sought to rely on Exs.A9 and A10, which are Pattadar passbook and title deed. The Tribunal has considered the 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 6 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.2364 of 2017 & I.A.No.6 of 2017 agricultural income as ₹90,000/- per annum, which translates to ₹7,500/- per month. As rightly contended by learned counsel for insurer, as the land belongs to deceased and it continues to remain with the legal heirs, thus, loss of income on account of agricultural activity cannot be considered in entirety, rather, merely loss of managerial skills alone can be factored. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to fix income on account of managerial skills at ₹5,500/- per month, thus, in total, the income of deceased is rounded off to ₹15,000/- per month in all respects. The Tribunal has applied future prospects at the rate of 30% rather than 25% in terms of Pranay Sethi’s case1. The age of deceased has been considered as 46 years and deduction of 1/4th was applied with multiplier of 13, which are in accordance with the standard principles. However, insofar as conventional heads are concerned, the same are to be revised, keeping in view the dicta laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case1. 9. Thus, we accordingly revise the compensation as under: Compensation Heads Amount Awarded In accordance with Monthly Income ₹15,000/- Yearly Income ₹1,80,000/- Future Prospects (Age being 46 years) 25% of ₹1,80,000/- = ₹45,000/- National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi 7 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.2364 of 2017 & I.A.No.6 of 2017 Deduction (1/4) ₹2,25,000/- - ₹56,250/- = ₹1,68,750/- (2017) 16 SCC 680 Paras 37, 39, 41, 42 and 59.4 Multiplier (13) ₹1,68,750/- x 13 = ₹21,93,750/- Loss of Income of the deceased ₹21,93,750/- 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 4 = ₹1,93,600/- (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 Ltd. And Ors. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1699 Para 34 Sadhana Tomar & Ors. Ashok Khushwaha & Ors. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 554 Para 17 Total ₹24,23,650/- 10. In the result, both appeal as well as cross-objections preferred by Insurer and claimants are disposed of in the following terms: 8 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.2364 of 2017 & I.A.No.6 of 2017 i) The claimants are granted revised compensation of ₹24,23,650/- 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, 1st claimant - wife of the deceased is entitled for ₹7,13,650/- and claimants 2 to 4 are entitled for ₹5,70,000/- each. 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. 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