APHC010251852018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1345 of 2018 Bench Sr.No:- 46 [3584] Cholamadalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant Vs. Smt. Chandili @ Chandika Sumathi & Ors. ...Respondent(s) ********** CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 12th August 2026 Present: Advocate for Appellant: MR. K SITA RAM Advocate for Respondents: - None - *** JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) Present appeal is preferred by Insurer, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, assailing the Award, dated 04.12.2017, in M.V.O.P. No.170 of 2016, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru, (for short, “the Tribunal”), challenging the quantum of compensation awarded to claimants. 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.1345 of 2018 3. The facts relevant for disposal of the appeal are set out as under: (a) deceased was working as Mazdoor in Forest Department of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (“TTD”) and was aged 55 years as on the date of accident, i.e., 19.07.2015. Deceased along with family members engaged Tempo Traveller Van bearing registration No.AP 03 TB 7389 to go to Rajahmundry to attend Godavari Pushkaras. The driver of van drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed road side culvert near Nachugunta village, West Godavari District. The deceased and some others sustained multiple injuries and were shifted to Government Hospital at Eluru. For better treatment, deceased was shifted to SVIMS Hospital, Tirupati and while undergoing treatment, he succumbed on 10.08.2015. (b) The incident was reported to Police, who registered Crime No.125 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 of IPC against the driver of offending van. (c) The deceased stated to be drawing about Rs.48,000/- per month, thus, wife and two children preferred the claim. 4. Respondents 1 and 2, driver and owner of offending van, respectively, filed written statement denying the averments leading to filing of the claim petition and sought for dismissal. 3 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. No.1345 of 2018 5. The insurer of offending van also filed written statement pleading that there was no negligence on the part of driver of offending van, besides disputed the age, income and occupation of deceased. 6. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: “1) Whether the deceased- Chandili @ Chandika Muna Swamy died in a road accident that took place on 20.07.2015 at 4.00 a.m., on NH 16 road in Nachugunta Village of Ungutur Mandal, due to rash and negligent driving of Van bearing No.AP 03 TB 7389 by its driver i.e., R1? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, to what extent and from which respondents? 3) To what relief?” 7. On behalf of claimants, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 and Exs.X1 to X6 marked. No evidence was adduced for respondents 1 and 2. On behalf of 3rd respondent Insurer, RW.1 was examined and Ex.B1 marked. 8. The Tribunal, on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, answered first issue in affirmative holding that the deceased died on account of rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent. While determining compensation, the age of deceased was considered as 55 years, applied multiplier of 11. Income of 4 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. No.1345 of 2018 deceased was assessed based on Ex.X2 salary certificate and Ex.X3 service register as ₹47,052/- p.m., out of which, after deducting income tax, the next income came to be arrived at ₹42,052/- p.m. The Tribunal awarded future prospects at the rate of 15% having regard to age of deceased. Further, as the deceased incurred medical expenses during the period of treatment, considering the evidence on record, Tribunal awarded ₹1,77,313/- towards the same. Further, Tribunal also awarded ₹70,000/- towards consortium, thus, in total awarded ₹47,27,723/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation and the same has been directed to be shared among the claimants as per the proportions mentioned therein. Challenging the same, present appeal is preferred. 9. Heard Mr.K.Sita Ram, learned counsel for appellant-Insurer and none appeared for claimants. 10. Learned counsel for insurer contended that the compensation awarded by Tribunal is excessive and exorbitant and not supported by proper evidence. In elaboration, it is contended that the Tribunal has considered income of deceased as Rs.47,052/- p.m., which is completely erroneous and not supported by proper evidence. Further, 5 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. No.1345 of 2018 the Tribunal has also awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a., which is on higher side. 11. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for insurer. 12. Liability of insurer is not in issue. The income of deceased was considered as ₹47,052/- p.m., and thereafter, after deducting income tax at the rate of 10%, the net income arrived at. In arriving at the said conclusion, the Tribunal relied on the documentary evidence, such as Exs.X2 salary certificate for the month of July, 2015, and Ex.X3 service register of the deceased and Ex.X4 certificate issued by Deputy Conservator of Forests. The said evidence clearly established that the deceased being an employee of TTD was drawing gross salary of Rs.47,052/- p.m., as on the date of accident. The Tribunal, thereafter, deducted income tax at the rate of 10% and thus, arrived at the income for the purpose of computing the loss of earnings. We are of the opinion that there is sufficient evidence on record, to prove the income of deceased, therefore, the finding and conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal cannot be said in any manner perverse calling for interference. The Tribunal also granted interest 6 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. No.1345 of 2018 at the rate of 7.5%p.a. and that we do not intend to interfere with the same as well. 13. Accordingly, we find no merit in the appeal and the same stands dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, shall stand closed. LISA GILL, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J. cs