APHC010195502022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3367] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 177/2022 Between: 1. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE,ALIBAIG STREET, GOVERNORPET, VIJAYAWADA ...APPELLANT AND 1. KAPU IMMANUEL VENKATA RAMANA, S/O LATE JAGANNADHAM, HINDU, 52 YEARS, DEPENDENT, RESIDENT AT BLOCK NO.41-11,TF-1, VAMBAY COLONY, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT-520 001 2. KAPU VIJAYA VEERA NARAYANAMMA, W/O IMMANUEL, HINDU, 49 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, RESIDENT AT BLOCK NO.41-11,TF-1, VAMBAY COLONY, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT -520 001 3. CH SRINIVASA RAO, S/O VENKATAPATHI RAO, HINDU, 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT DR.NO.1-4-247/1, K.K.NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. (DRIVER OF THE CRIME VEHICLE NO.AP-16-TW-7419) 4. CHENNUPATI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O NARASAIAH, RESIDING AT DR.NO.1-9, MULAPADU VILLAGE, LBRAHIMPATNAM MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT-521 456 (OWNER OF THE CRIME VEHICLE NO. AP-16-TW-7419) ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High Court may be pleased to Memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the decree and order dated 24.01.2022 passed in M V.O P.No.423 of 2016 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - VIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada for the following grounds among other 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings dated 24.01.2022 passed in M V.O.P.No.423 of 2016 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal — Cum - VIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada including execution proceedings and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased please to permit the Petitioners to withdraw the deposited amount by the Appellant credited in M.VO.P.No.423 of 2016 before the Chairman MACT-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada in pursuant to the orders of this Hon'ble Court dated 27-04-2022 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in M.A.C.M.A.No.177 of 2022 and to pass Counsel for the Appellant: A JAYANTHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): S BALA MOHAN RANGA The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge at Vijayawada (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.423 of 2016 dated 24.01.2022. 3 2. The appellant is the insurer of the Lorry bearing No.AP 16 TW 7419 (hereinafter referred to as “crime lorry”). The respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are parents of one Kapu Arjun (hereinafter called as “the deceased”) are the claimants before the Tribunal. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the driver and owner of the crime lorry. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal. 4. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: i). On 08.07.2016 at about 08.30 a.m., while the deceased was proceeding on his cycle and when he reached at Srinu Hotel, near Daba Kotla Center, the driver of the crime lorry driven the same in a rash and negligent manner, hit the cycle of the deceased in opposite direction, resulted the crime lorry ran over the head of the deceased and he died on the spot. 4 ii). By the date of incident, the deceased is working as lift boy in Swarna Palace, Governor pet, Eluru Road, Vijayawada and earning Rs.8,000/- per month. Being dependents, they claimed compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- against the driver, owner and insurer of the crime lorry. 5. The respondent No.3/insurer of the crime lorry filed counter denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the respondent No.1 is not having valid driving license to drive the crime lorry and that the compensation claimed by the claimant is excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition against this respondent. 6. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: “1.Whether Mr.Kapu Arjun, S/o.Immanuel @ Venkata Ramana died due to the motor vehicle accident occurred on 08.07.2016 at about 08.30 A.M near Srinu Hotel, Dabakotla Center, Singhnagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District? 5 2.Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation as prayed for ? And if so from whom and to what amount? and 3.To what relief?” 7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimant, PWs.1 to 3 were examined, Exs.A.1 to A.9 and C.1 to C.4 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondent No.3, none were examined, however, Ex.B.1 policy was marked with consent. 8. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime lorry by the 1st respondent, held that the claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.16,00,200/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.1 to 3, for the death of the deceased in the accident. 9. It is against the said award; the present appeal was preferred by the appellant/insurer. 6 10. Heard Sri T.Ravi Teja, learned counsel representing Sri N.Jayanthi, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer and Sri S.Balamohana Ranga, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2/claimants. 11. Now, short point that arises for determination is “whether the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside, if so, to what extent?” 12. POINT: It is not in dispute about the death of the deceased in the accident, involvement of crime lorry, rash and negligent driving of the crime lorry in causing the incident. It is a fact that no appeal was preferred by the claimants against the findings of the Tribunal. 13. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer is that when the deceased was a bachelor, the Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd from the income of the deceased towards personal and living expenses instead of 50%, thereby, prays to consider the present appeal. 7 14. Coming to the just compensation, by considering the testimony of P.W.3 coupled with Exs.C.3 and C.4, the Tribunal rightly taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/-, which comes to Rs.96,000/- per annum. 15. As per the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi1, the deductions towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, held at Paragraph No.39 as follows: 39. Before we proceed to analyse the principle for addition of future prospects, we think it seemly to clear the maze which is vividly discernible from Sarla Verma, Reshma Kumari, Rajesh, and Munna Lal Jain. Three aspects need to be clarified. The first one pertains to deduction towards personal and living expenses. In paragraph No.30, Sarla Verma lays down: - “30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra case, the general practice is to apply standardised deduction. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this (2003) 3 SLR ® 601 Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the 1 2017 (6) ALT 60 (SC) 8 number of dependent family members is 2 to 3 one- fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six. 31.Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself.” 16. As per the Pranay Sethi case (referred supra) in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years….. (emphasis supplied) 17. In the present case, as per the above said decision, 40% of actual income has to be added to the income of the deceased towards future prospects as the deceased is aged about 28 years by the date of incident, which is not in dispute. After adding 40% to the income of the deceased towards future prospects her income is determined at Rs.1,34,400/-(Rs.96,000/- + Rs.38,400/-). 9 18. In the case on hand, since the deceased was a bachelor, thereby, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be 50% from the income of the deceased. Then the quantum is determined as Rs.67,200/-. 19. Regarding just compensation, in a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court between Sandeep Khanuja vs Atul Dande & Anr2, at Paragraph Nos.11 and 12 held as follows : “11………it is now a settled principle, repeatedly stated and restated time and again by this Court, that in awarding compensation the multiplier method is logically sound and legally well established. This method, known as 'principle of multiplier', has been evolved to quantify the loss of income as a result of death or permanent disability suffered in an accident……... 12……… While applying the multiplier method, future prospects on advancement in life and career are taken into consideration. In a proceeding under Section 166 of the Act relating to death of the victim, multiplier method is applied after taking into consideration the loss of income to the family of the 2 2017 (3) SCC 315 10 deceased that resulted due to the said demise. Thus, the multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimant, as the case may be……. ……. there should be no departure from the multiplier method on the ground that Section 110-B, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (corresponding to the present provision of Section 168, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) envisaged payment of ‘just’ compensation since the multiplier method is the accepted method for determining and ensuring payment of just compensation and is expected to bring uniformity and certainty of the awards made all over the country.”……. (emphasis supplied) 20. The appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 28 years is 17. The total loss of dependency is determined at Rs.11,42,400/- (Rs.67,200/- x 17). 21. The Tribunal rightly awarded an amount of Rs.44,000/- towards loss of consortium, towards funeral 11 expenses Rs.16,500/- and towards loss of estate Rs.16,500/-, respectively, which requires no interference. In total the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.12,19,400/- against the respondent Nos.1 to 3. 22. A brief exposition of the calculation made to arrive at the compensation is set out infra: S.No. Heads Calculation 1 The annual income of the deceased. Rs.96,000/- per annum 2 40% of above(1) to be added as future prospects (Rs.96,000/- + Rs.38,400/-) Rs.1,34,400/- 3 50% to be deducted as personal expenses of deceased. Rs.67,200/- 4 Compensation arrived at on application of multiplier 17. (Rs.67,200/- x 17) Rs.11,42,400/- 5 Loss of consortium Rs.44,000/- 6 Loss of estate Rs.16,500/- 7 Funeral expenses Rs.16,500/- 12 Total compensation awarded(Rows 4+5+6+7) Rs.12,19,400/- 23. In view of the above, the order passed by the Tribunal warrants interference regarding quantum of compensation only. As such, the appeal preferred by the appellant/insurer is liable to be considered partly. Thus, the point is answered accordingly. 24. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part. Consequently, restricted the compensation awarded to the claimants from Rs.16,00,200/- to Rs.12,19,400/-, with proportionate costs, with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondent No.3/insurer shall deposit the entire compensation amount within two months from the date of this judgment before the Tribunal. On such deposit, the petitioners/father and mother are entitled an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- and Rs.6,19,400/- towards their respective shares and they are permitted to withdraw the same with interest accrued thereon. The 13 petitioners are directed to pay the deficit Court fee before the Tribunal forthwith. The Tribunal shall proceed to pay the amount in the aforesaid terms, adjusting the amount, if any, already paid. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS Date: 24.06.2025 Krs 14 350 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A.No.177 of 2022 DATE: 24.06.2025 Krs