APHC010498042017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1312 of 2017 AND M.A.C.M.A. (SR) NO.4172 OF 2016 Bench Sr.No:-64 [3584] M.A.C.M.A.No.1312 OF 2017 Pasupuleti Rama Tulasi & 3 Others ...Appellant(s) Vs. Gituga Somaraju and Anr. ...Respondent(s) ********** CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 8th September 2026 Present: Advocate for Appellants/claimants: MR. V PADMANABHA RAO Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): MR. V ROOPESH KUMAR REDDY (FOR INSURER) *** COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) Both these appeals, preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”), since assail very same judgment and award, dated 30.06.2015, in M.V.O.P.No.625 of 2011, passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada (for short, “the Tribunal”), are heard together and disposed of by present common judgment. 2 HCJ & CGR, J. MACMA. No.1312 of 2017 & MACMA(SR) No.4172 of 2016 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.1312 of 2017 is filed by claimants dis-satisfied with quantum of compensation determined, whereas M.A.C.M.A. (SR) No.4172 of 2016 by insurer assailing quantum of compensation determined. 4. Brief facts of the case are as follows: (a) Deceased, aged 33 years, was working as a Consultant Software Engineer at Polaris Software Services, Chennai. On 29.05.2011, around 3:40 PM, while deceased was proceeding from Bollaram towards Miyapur on motorcycle bearing registration No.UP 16 H 2919, he was hit by 7-seater auto bearing registration No.AP 28 TV 5079, driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner, from behind, thus, deceased fell down and the auto ran over him, resulting in grievous injuries. Thus, deceased succumbed on spot. (b) Police registered Crime No.229 of 2011 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC against driver of offending auto and upon investigation, charge-sheet was laid. (c) Wife, minor daughter, and parents of deceased preferred claim, seeking compensation of ₹1,11,95,700/-, along with interest. 3 HCJ & CGR, J. MACMA. No.1312 of 2017 & MACMA(SR) No.4172 of 2016 5. Owner of offending auto, 1st respondent, remained ex parte. 6. Insurer, 2nd respondent, filed written statement, denying that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of auto, there was contributory negligence on the part of deceased in causing the accident, that driver of passenger auto did not possess valid permit and fitness, and that it was overloaded with unauthorised passengers, thus, amounting to violation of conditions of policy, hence denied any liability. 7. Basing on aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal has framed following issues: “1) Whether the deceased Pasupuleti Rama Krishna died in a motor accident that occurred on 29.05.2011 at about 15.40 hours, opp: Century Matrix, Near HDFC Bank, Bollaram, Miyapur Road, Miyapur, Hyderabad due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle bearing No.AP 28 TV 5079? 2) What is the correct age and income of the deceased by the date of accident? 3) Whether petitioners are entitled to the compensation as prayed for? If so, for what amount and from whom? 4) To what relief?” 8. Claimants examined PW.1 to PW.5 and marked Exs.A1 to A22, and Exs.X1 to X13. The insurer did not examine any witness, however, marked Ex.B.1. 4 HCJ & CGR, J. MACMA. No.1312 of 2017 & MACMA(SR) No.4172 of 2016 9. On analysing the evidence on record, the Tribunal answered first issue in favour of claimants, holding that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending auto, due to which deceased died on spot. Insofar as determination of compensation, the Tribunal, considering Exs.X2 to X6, which are appointment letter, salary payslips, and Form-16 for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011- 12, coupled with evidence of PW 4, Income-tax Officer, and PW 5, Senior Manager of Polaris Software Lab Limited, assessed net salary at ₹40,982/- per month. Future prospects were awarded at the rate of 50%, considering age of deceased as 33, multiplier of 17 was applied. 1/3rd of the income was deducted towards personal and living expenses, accordingly, determined the loss of earnings. The Tribunal further awarded ₹10,000/- towards loss of estate, ₹10,000/- towards consortium; thus, in total, awarded compensation of ₹83,68,428/-, payable along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Assailing the award, both claimants as well as insurer are in appeal. 10. Heard Mr.V. Padmanabha Rao, learned counsel for claimants and Mr.V.Roopesh Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for insurer. 11. Learned counsel for claimants primarily contended that the Tribunal has erred in determining net salary of deceased at ₹40,982/- per month, ignoring the payslips produced vide Ex.X4. It is his 5 HCJ & CGR, J. MACMA. No.1312 of 2017 & MACMA(SR) No.4172 of 2016 contention that, as per the payslip for April, 2011, which is the immediate preceding month of occurrence of accident, the gross salary of deceased was ₹45,776/-, therefore, the same ought to have been taken into consideration for the purpose of assessing the income. It is further contended that the Tribunal has awarded meagre amounts under conventional heads, which are not in consonance with the principles laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi1. 12. Per contra, Mr.V. Roopesh Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for insurer, while supporting the impugned award to the extent of determination of income of deceased, contended that the Tribunal has rightly evaluated evidence on record and has come to conclusion that deceased was earning ₹40,982/-, and even evidence of PW.5 also suggested the same, therefore, the same do not call for any interference. Apart from these submissions, though learned counsel for insurer made a half-hearted attempt by contending that there was contributory negligence on the part of deceased, however, when it was pointed out that the evidence on record suggested that the motorcycle was hit by auto from behind, the said argument was thus given up. It is further contended that the Tribunal has awarded future prospects on 1(2017) 16 SCC 680 6 HCJ & CGR, J. MACMA. No.1312 of 2017 & MACMA(SR) No.4172 of 2016 higher side, rather than 40% in terms of the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi1. 13. We have gone through the record and also considered the submissions made above. 14. Given the facts and circumstances, the only issue that arises for our consideration is whether the compensation determined by Tribunal is just, fair, and reasonable. 15. The claimants relied on Exs.X2 to X6, which are appointment letter, salary particulars (a bunch of payslips from November, 2009 to May, 2011), Form 16 for the year 2010-11 and 2011-12, apart from examining Income Tax Officer as PW.4 and Senior Manager of the employer as PW 5. Even Income Tax Returns for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2010-11 were marked as Exs.A7 to A9. The Tribunal has proceeded on the evidence of PW.5, who has deposed that deceased joined the services of the company in the year 2010, and as on the date of death, the net salary drawn was ₹40,982/- per month. Though there is sufficient evidence on record, in particular the payslips from November, 2009 till May 2011, which clearly provided the salary particulars, rather than considering the same, the statement of PW.5 was given much credence. 7 HCJ & CGR, J. MACMA. No.1312 of 2017 & MACMA(SR) No.4172 of 2016 16. We have gone through the payslips exhibited as Ex.X4. All the payslips consistently indicate that deceased was paid gross salary of ₹45,776/- per month, which consisted of basic (₹13,542/-), HRA (₹6,771/-), Conveyance Allowance (₹800/-), Special Allowance (₹23,588/-), Medical Reimbursement Salary (₹875/-), and Children Education Allowance (₹200/-). After applying deductions of P.F., Professional Tax, and Income Tax, the net salary was indicated as ₹41,629/-. We, therefore, are of the view that gross salary of deceased can safely be considered as ₹45,776/-, as can be culled out from payslip for April 2011 and other previous months. We further have to factor in the statutory deduction of income tax, which shall be applied as per the then prevailing slab rates, as under: Income Tax Slabs in India — Financial Year 2011–12 Assessment Year 2012–13 | Individual Taxpayer Sl. No. Taxable Income Income Tax Rate Income tax deduction 1 Up to ₹1,80,000 Nil -- 2 ₹1,80,001 – ₹5,00,000/- 10% ₹32,000/- 3 ₹5,00,001/- - ₹8.00 Lakhs 20% ₹49,312/- x 20%=9,852/- 17. The Tribunal has wrongly applied multiplier “17” and, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. D.T.C.2, since age of deceased was taken as 33 years, the proper multiplier would be 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 8 HCJ & CGR, J. MACMA. No.1312 of 2017 & MACMA(SR) No.4172 of 2016 “16”. Future prospects were awarded at the rate of 50%, and various components under conventional heads were improperly granted, thus, we revise the same in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi1. 18. The claimants, therefore, are entitled to just and fair compensation as under: Compensation Heads Amount Awarded In Accordance with: Net annual income ₹45,776/- x 12 ₹5,49,312/- Less – Income tax ₹5,49,312/- - ₹41,862/- = ₹5,07,450/- Future Prospects (Age being 33 years) 40% of ₹5,07,450/- = ₹2,02,980/- National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 Para 37, 39, 41, 42 and 59.4 Deduction (1/3) ₹7,10,430/- - ₹2,36,810/- = ₹4,73,620/- Multiplier (16) ₹4,73,620/- x 16 = ₹75,77,920/- Loss of Income of the deceased ₹75,77,920/- 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 ₹48,400x4 = ₹1,93,600/- (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. 9 HCJ & CGR, J. MACMA. No.1312 of 2017 & MACMA(SR) No.4172 of 2016 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1699 Para 34 Sadhana Tomar v. Ashok Khushwaha 2025 SCC OnLine SC 554 Para 17 Total ₹78,07,820/- 19. Accordingly, both these appeals are disposed of. The impugned award, dated 30.06.2015, shall stand modified by revising the compensation amount to Rs.78,07,820/- 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.28,07,820/-, 2nd claimant is entitled to Rs.20,00,000/- and claimants 3 and 4 are entitled to Rs.15,00,000/- 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