APHC010079712022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] MONDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NOs: 76 & 84/2022 And 502 & 503/2021 Between: 1. PUJYAM SESHANJANEYA RAJESH, ADOPTED S/O VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, AGE 20 YEARS, R/O D NO 3- 112, PERAVALLI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 2. PUJYAM RAJESWARI, (DIED) ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, TADEPALLIGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 2. MALLINA GANGA KAPIL ALIAS KAIL, S/O SATYANARAYANA, AGED 21 YEARS R/O MORTHA, UNDRAJAVARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. M/S RAVINDRABARATHI EDUCATIONAL ACADEMY, SEC AND CORP V VENKATESWARA RAO, D NO 23-3-8A, NARRAVARI STREET, SATYANARAYANA PURAM, VIJAYAWADA ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toAggrieved by the Award and Decree dated 19.03.2020 passed in O.P.No 37/2014 on the file of the Chairman, MACT-cum-IV Addl. District Judge, West Godavari at Tanuku, the appellant prefers the present Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal for the following among other. Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. A VEERASWAMY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NOs:76 & 84/2022 And 502 & 503 of 2021 COMMON JUDGMENT: All these appeals arise out of one accident by which claimant’s father and mother died, for which two independent claims were made and since facts in issue are common, they are being decided by way of common judgment. 2. Parties herein will be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the present case in a nutshell are as follows: a) Claimant is adopted son of late P.Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy and late P.Parvathi, who succumbed on account of accident. The deceased, on 09.11.2013, while proceeding on motorcycle, school van bearing No.AP 16TC 5088 belonging to 2nd respondent dashed them, resulting in P.Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy succumbing on spot and his wife Smt.Parvathi, sustained severe and grievous injuries, after being shifted to private hospital at Tanuku, died while undergoing treatment. The incident was reported to police, who registered 2 CGR, J MACMA. No.76 of 2022 & batch Crime No.126 of 2013 against driver of the van under Section 304-A of IPC. The police, after conducting investigation, laid charge sheet against the driver of offending vehicle. Since both rider and pillion rider of motorcycle died and were left behind with their adopted son, he instituted M.V.O.P. Nos.36/2014 and 37/2014 under Section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation on account of death of Sri P.Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy and Smt.P.Parvathi, respectively. As seen from the respective claims, the compensation is claimed as under: Case No. Name of the deceased Occupation Age Income Amount claimed MVOP 36/2014 P.Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy Pensioner 60 ₹14,732/- ₹7,20,000/- MVOP 37/2014 P.Rajeswari Lace worker 55 ₹6,000/- ₹5,40,000/- b) Initially claim was laid by adopted son as a minor being represented by Sri P.Brahameswara Rao and also 2nd petitioner, biological mother, later as he became major, Tribunal discharged the guardian by orders dated 06.07.2018. Further, the 2nd petitioner, biological mother of 1st claimant/petitioner died during pendency of the proceedings. The claim was contested by all three respondents i.e., driver of offending vehicle, owner of vehicle and also insurer. 1st respondent driver of vehicle denied 3 CGR, J MACMA. No.76 of 2022 & batch that accident occurred on account of his rash and negligence and even denied that he was driver of said vehicle at the time of accident, rather was only a supervisor. The 2nd respondent also filed written statement contending that 1st respondent never drove the offending vehicle and that police have falsely implicated him to be driver of said vehicle, besides disputing that deceased Satyanarayana Murthy was a pensioner and his wife was not having any income at relevant point of time. c) The 3rd respondent – Insurer also filed written statement denying the manner in which accident occurred and that the 1st respondent was responsible in causing the accident on account of rash and negligence, further that the accident occurred on account of the rider of motorcycle losing balance and hitting the van, therefore, attributed self-negligence and was also equally responsible for cause of the accident. Further, it was also pleaded that driver of offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving license, therefore, the same amounted to violation of policy conditions, therefore, no liability could be fastened. Further, 3rd respondent also disputed the age, income and occupation of both deceased. 4 CGR, J MACMA. No.76 of 2022 & batch d) In support of respective claims, claimant got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A14. Further, he examined P.Ws.2 to 4 to testify that he was given in adoption to deceased couple. On the other hand, the Insurer has examined its Assistant Manager as R.W.1 and Motor Vehicle Inspector as R.W.2 and got marked Exs.B1 and B2. In both claims, the witnesses examined on behalf of claimant are common except for P.W.2. In M.V.O.P. No.37/2014, biological mother of claimant, who incidentally was also 2nd petitioner in both O.P.s, was examined as P.W.2 and whereas in the other O.P., Sri B.S.H.V.Subrahmanyam was examined as P.W.2, essentially in both cases to speak of the adoption. Similarly, the exhibits marked for claimants also are common except for inquest report, postmortem report and additional exhibits i.e., Ex.A7 and A8 in M.V.O.P. No.36/2014, which are death certificate of Smt.P.Rajeswari and pension book of Sri P.V.V.Satyanarayana Murthy. On behalf of respondents, the respondent – Insurer, both witnesses and also documents remain common. e) Based on pleadings in both cases, the Tribunal has independently framed following issues:- 5 CGR, J MACMA. No.76 of 2022 & batch M.V.O.P. No.36 of 2014: 1. Whether the 1st petitioner Rajesh is the adoptive son of late PVV Satyanarayana Murthy and Smt.Parvathi? 2. Whether the accident dt.9.11.2013 at 8.00 A.M., was due to rash and negligent driving of school van bearing No.AP 16TC 5088 driven by it’s driver – 1st respondent? 3. Whether the school van bearing No.AP 16TC 5088 was insured with the 3rd respondent? 4. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation claimed for the death of deceased Satyanarayana Murthy in the accident? If so, what is the compensation which the petitioners are entitled for? 5. Whether all the respondents or some of the respondents are liable to pay the compensation? 6. To what relief? M.V.O.P. No.37 of 2014: 1. Whether the 1st petitioner Rajesh is the adoptive son of late PVV Satyanarayana Murthy and Smt.Parvathi? 2. Whether the accident dt.9.11.2013 at 8.00 A.M., was due to rash and negligent driving of school van bearing No.AP 16TC 5088 driven by it’s driver – 1st respondent? 3. Whether the school van bearing No.AP 16TC 5088 was insured with the 3rd respondent? 4. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation claimed for the death of deceased Smt.Parvathi in the accident? If so, what is the compensation which the petitioners are entitled for? 6 CGR, J MACMA. No.76 of 2022 & batch 5. Whether all the respondents or some of the respondents are liable to pay the compensation? 6. To what relief? f) A glance of aforesaid issues would reveal that issues 1 to 3 and 5 are common, only 4th issue dealt with the quantum of compensation. g) The Tribunal after analysing the evidence on record both oral and documentary, has come to conclusion that claimant was adoptive son of deceased couple and further that accident occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent driver of offending vehicle. Likewise, the 3rd issue was also answered in affirmative, holding that there existed valid insurance policy and that though it was pleaded by insurer that driver of offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving license, the same was negatived in the absence of any valid evidence. Accordingly, Insurer was held to be liable for the claim. Therefore, even 5th issue regarding liability was answered in favour of the claimant. h) Coming to the quantum of compensation in M.V.O.P. No.36/2014, which related to the death of Sri P.V.V.Satyanarayana Murthy, Tribunal has awarded compensation, considering the 7 CGR, J MACMA. No.76 of 2022 & batch evidence on record that he was drawing pension of ₹13,327/-, as follows:- S.No. Description of the Head Finding of Tribunal 1 Pension Income ₹13,327/- 2 Age of the deceased 67 years 3 Deduction 1/3rd of the amount 4 Multiplier 5 5 Loss of estate ₹15,000/- 6 Funeral Expenses ₹10,000/- 7 Transportation Charges ₹10,000/- 8 Total Compensation awarded ₹5,68,100/- 9 Interest @7.5% per annum from date of petition till date of deposit i) Coming to the quantum of compensation in M.V.O.P. No.37/2014, which related to the death of Smt.P.Parvathi, Tribunal has awarded compensation, considering that the evidence on record did not prove the income as claimed, so adopted notional income of ₹3,000/-, as follows:- S.No. Description of the Head Finding of Tribunal 1 Notional Income ₹3,000/- 2 Age of the deceased 58 years 8 CGR, J MACMA. No.76 of 2022 & batch 3 Multiplier 7 4 Loss of estate ₹15,000/- 5 Funeral Expenses ₹10,000/- 6 Transportation Charges ₹10,000/- 7 Total Compensation awarded ₹2,87,000/- 8 Interest @7.5% per annum from date of petition till date of deposit j) Assailing these orders passed in M.V.O.P. Nos.36 and 37 of 2014, both Insurer and as well as claimant preferred respective appeals. The Insurer had challenged the orders of Tribunal essentially on liability aspect and whereas claimant has challenged being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation to be not just and fair. 4. Heard Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned standing counsel, for Insurer and Sri A.Veeraswamy, learned counsel for claimant. Submissions and consideration regarding liability: 5. Learned counsel for Insurer mainly contended that the driver of offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving license, therefore, the same amounted to violation of conditions of policy, therefore, Tribunal ought not to have fastened liability on Insurer. Further, he contended that as driver of van being 9 CGR, J MACMA. No.76 of 2022 & batch 1st respondent to the claim having denied to be driver at the time of accident, the onus lies on claimant to demonstrate that the driver of offending vehicle had valid driving licence. He further contended that it is the duty of the owner of the vehicle to ensure that driver had valid driving licence, which is a statutory obligation, therefore, unless it is established that driver had valid driving licence, the same clearly falls under the mischief of violation of conditions of policy. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sardari v. Sushil Kumar1. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for claimant, while supporting the impugned orders in both cases, contended that since existence of policy is not in dispute and that the driver of offending vehicle was charge sheeted, the burden lies on Insurance Company to disprove that there was no valid and effective driving license. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh2. 7. Apart from above said submission, learned counsel for Insurer initially advanced arguments on maintainability of the claim by contending that as claims were instituted under Section 163A of 1 (2008) 17 SCC 208 2 (2004) 3 SCC 297 10 CGR, J MACMA. No.76 of 2022 & batch MV Act, the Tribunal could not have assumed the jurisdiction to decide the same under Section 166 of M.V. Act. However, having gone through the original record and having satisfied that the claims were presented duly under Section 166 of the MV Act, he fairly conceded that the Tribunal had rightly exercised the jurisdiction under Section 166 of MV Act. Therefore, this Court is now only called upon to examine the issue as to whether the orders of Tribunal suffer from any perversity on account of fixing liability on the Insurer and whether the compensation awarded is just and fair. 8. In the claim, it is pleaded that 1st respondent drove the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner, causing the accident. The role of 1st respondent as driver of offending vehicle was investigated by police, who ultimately laid charge sheet. The 3rd respondent – Insurer has taken stand that driver of van did not possess valid and effective driving license. The 1st respondent driver filed counter denying that he was driving van at relevant point of time rather he was only engaged as supervisor. Same was the version of 2nd respondent owner of the van. When the claimant has taken specific stand that 1st respondent drove the van at the time of accident and the same was fortified later by police 11 CGR, J MACMA. No.76 of 2022 & batch investigation resulting in filing of charge sheet against 1st respondent, the burden now lies on Insurer to prove that 1st respondent did not possess driving license at relevant point of time. Though respondents 1 and 2 denied that the van was driven by 1st respondent at the time of accident, there is ample evidence both the charge sheet and as well as Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report to suggest otherwise. The Tribunal came to conclusion that claimant has demonstrated that the van was being driven by 1st respondent. 9. Coming to the aspect of whether he possessed valid driving license or not, since such stand was pleaded by the Insurer, the burden lies on it to establish the same. It has not taken any steps to summon and examine either 1st respondent driver or concerned RTA. Even R.W.2, who spoke about Ex.B2 – MVI report, only stated that he was not aware whether 1st respondent had driving license and he only verified the said aspect based on the address. He further stated that proper verification could be done only if Aadhaar Number or date of birth was made available. In effect, the said evidence really cannot come to the aid of the Insurer to assert that 1st respondent had no license at all. The Tribunal has appreciated aforesaid evidence and has come to conclusion that 12 CGR, J MACMA. No.76 of 2022 & batch Insurer has miserably failed to establish that 1st respondent did not possess driving license. This Court is of the opinion that such conclusion and finding arrived does not suffer from any infirmity nor is perverse. Even if the evidence mentioned above is likely to result in forming a slightly different view, the appellate court is not supposed to take such recourse rather should sustain the view of Tribunal unless the finding is perverse and shocks the conscious of the Court. In cases, where Insurer takes stand that the driver of offending vehicle does not possess valid and effective driving license, the legal requirement of proving the same merely rests on Insurer. In one of the judgments of this Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd., Kurnool v. Madiga Thappeta Ramakka and others3, considering similar aspect, it was succinctly held as follows: “7. In Narcinva V. Kamat and another v. Alfredo Antonio Doe Martins and others (AIR 1985 SC 1281), referred to above, while considering the burden of proof and liability of the insurance company, the Supreme Court observed as follows:— “When the insurance company complains breach of the terms of contract, which would permit it to disown its 3 1994 SCC OnLine AP 77 13 CGR, J MACMA. No.76 of 2022 & batch liability under, the contract of insurance, the burden is squarely on the insurance company to prove that the breach has been committed by the other party to the contract. The test in such a situation would be ‘who would fail, if no such evidence is led’. With this principle of law in view the evidence has to be judged. Merely non- production of licence or non-examination of the driver of the vehicle is not enough nor any adverse inference can be drawn against the person holding that because of non- examination of the driver or non-production of the licence, the burden is discharged by a mere question in cross-examination nor the owner is under any obligation to furnish the evidence so as to enable the insurance company not to riggle out its liability under the contract of insurance. However, the R.T.A., who issues the driving licence, keeps record of the licence issued and renewed by it and the insurance company could have got the evidence produced to substantiate its defence. Not only this, no enquiries were made by the insurance company from the R.T.A. concerned regarding the fact of issue of a driving licence to Manoharlal. Hence, it would not give rise to an adverse inference about respondent No. 1 being an unauthorised driver.” Following the above judgment of the Supreme Court, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench in Karan Singh v. Manoharlal, 1989 ACJ 177, referred to above, observed that as the driver was not examined and as the 14 CGR, J MACMA. No.76 of 2022 & batch insurance company did not call any record of the R.T.A. or any other evidence to establish that the driver had no driving licence, the insurance company has failed to discharge its burden by leading legal evidence. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C.B. Shankar, 1986 ACJ 821 (supra), referred to above, its was observed by the Madras High Court that in order to escape the liability, the insurance company is not only required to prove that the driver was not holding licence at the time of accident but also to prove that the driver was disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence or never had any licence at all. 8. Mere mention in the criminal court's judgment about the driver not having a licence, muchless a valid driving licence is not sufficient. It is well established legal principle that the findings given in criminal court judgments cannot be taken and cannot be taken advantage in civil matters. As seen from the above pronouncements of the Supreme Court and other High Courts, the best method is to summon the driver to produce the driving licence, and also to take appropriate steps to examine him. If the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle remain ex parte, a duty is cast upon the court on the application of the insurance company to take appropriate steps to summon the driver and examine him. If the driver is summoned and if he has produced the driving licence it is sufficient. If he did not respond to the summons and did not appear nor did he produce the driving licence, an adverse inference can be drawn that he was not holding a 15 CGR, J MACMA. No.76 of 2022 & batch valid driving licence. It is also the duty of the Insurance Company to summon the R.T.A. officials to produce the driving licence as the R.T.A. who issues the driving licence keeps record of the licence issue and renewed by it and the insurance company could have got the evidence produced to substantiate its defence. Either of the above two steps has not been taken by the insurance company. As already stated, if the driver, in spite of receipt of summons, has not been present and subjected himself for examination, the court is entitled to draw adverse inference. Whether a driver is having a valid driving licence or not is within the exclusive knowledge of the driver himself or at certain times the owner of the vehicle will be having that information as he is expected to know before he is taken as driver. The insurance company did not take any effective steps to discharge the burden. It is the case of the insurance company that one Adhinarayana Setty was appointed as investigating officer and he submitted his report Ex. B.6. Without examining the said Administrative Officer, his report, marked through another person, cannot be given due weight. The mere filing of the report of the Administrative Officer, without examining him, does not absolve the responsibility of the insurance company in discharging the burden. From the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the insurance company has not discharged its burden by leading legal evidence. Under the umbrella of Ex. B.1 policy it cannot take shelter and claim that it has discharged its burden cast upon it." 16 CGR, J MACMA. No.76 of 2022 & batch 10. Learned counsel for Insurer referred to judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sardari’s case2. It was a case where the driver of offending vehicle himself admitted that he did not possess any valid driving license nor he ever applied for it. In that context, the Hon’ble Apex Court examined facts of that particular case and incidentally also embarked on explaining the distinction of cases where license produced was fake and a case where license had expired. There is no quarrel with respect to the proposition that if the driver did not possess valid driving license, Insurer cannot be fastened with any liability. However, the said proposition would only apply in case it is admitted by the driver himself in not possessing driving license. In the present case, 1st respondent driver was never called upon or summoned by Insurer to speak about the same. Though in the counter filed by 1st respondent, he took stand that he never drove the offending vehicle, the said self- serving statement got overweighed by the evidence let in on behalf of claimant. Even otherwise, 1st respondent never said in the counter that he did not possess any driving license at all. Therefore, the judgment relied on really does not help the Insurer in any manner. 17 CGR, J MACMA. No.76 of 2022 & batch 11. In view of aforesaid observations, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly decided the aspect of liability in Insurer being directed to pay the compensation. Learned counsel for Insurer has also made an incidental submission that in case the liability has to be fastened on Insurer, this Court should adopt pay and recover principle, for which purpose, reliance has been placed on Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Gudivada Rajesh v. N.Kireeti Raju and others4. Since this Court has come to definitive conclusion that Insurer has not come up with cogent evidence to prove its stand that the driver of offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving license and discharged its burden of proof, it cannot be inferred that there is a violation of condition of policy for this Court to apply pay and recovery principle. Quantum of Compensation: (i) M.V.O.P. No.36 of 2014 12. Learned counsel for claimant contended that Tribunal ought to have considered the income of deceased as ₹14,732/- in view of evidence let in by way of Ex.A8 passbook, which was earned by 4 2025 SCC OnLine AP 850 18 CGR, J MACMA. No.76 of 2022 & batch way of pension, however, Tribunal was only constrained to grant ₹13,327/-. Further, he also contended that Tribunal erred in applying multiplier of 5, considering age as 67years, rather multiplier of 9 ought to have been applied, considering the age of deceased as 60 years. He further submits that Tribunal erred in not awarding proper amounts towards conventional heads, in view of the dictum laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others5, the conventional heads need to be accordingly revised. Learned counsel for Insurer on the other hand contended that Tribunal has computed both income and age of deceased based on the evidence available on record, particularly income has been assessed as ₹13,327/- based on entries made in the passbook and insofar as age was concerned, the same came to be reckoned based on the evidence let in by the claimant himself by appreciating the date of birth as mentioned in Ex.A11, which was household card/ration card, which was issued on 03.03.2006, therefore, the quantum of compensation determined does not call for any interference. 5 (2017) 16 SCC 680 19 CGR, J MACMA. No.76 of 2022 & batch 13. The Tribunal has examined the aspect of income of deceased based on the evidence let in by claimant and having assessed the entries in the passbook has rightly fixed the income as ₹13,327/-. Similarly, in computing the age of deceased, as the certificate of date of birth has not been produced, the date of birth as declared by deceased himself in the ration card, which was marked as Ex.A11 has been taken into consideration and accordingly, determined the age as 67 years, therefore, these two findings rendered by Tribunal are amply justified. 14. Having gone through the material evidence and also the plea of both claimant as well as respondent Insurer and findings of Tribunal, this Court is of the opinion that the claimant is entitled to following compensation:- S.No. Description of the Head Amount Entitled in rupees 1 Net Annual Income ₹13,327/- x 12 = ₹1,59,924/- 2 Deduction towards personal expenditure (1/3rd) ₹53,308/- 3 Total Annual Loss of Dependency ₹1,06,616/- 4 Multiplier of 5 for the age of 67 years 5 x ₹1,06,616/- = ₹5,33,080/- Conventional Heads: 5 (i) Loss of consortium (1 claimant) ₹48,400/- 20 CGR, J MACMA. No.76 of 2022 & batch (ii) Loss of Estate ₹18,150/- (iii) Funeral expenses ₹18,150/- 6 Total Compensation ₹6,17,780/- (ii) M.V.O.P. No.37 of 2014 15. Learned counsel for claimant mainly contended that the deceased was attending to work of lace and used to earn ₹6,000/- per month, however, the Tribunal, without appreciating the same, has only considered the income as ₹3,000/- per month. Even in the absence of any material evidence, as deceased was housewife, the Tribunal ought to have considered the notional income @₹5,000/- per month, in support of said submission, he placed reliance on judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunita & Ors v. Vinod Singh and ors6. He further submits that Tribunal erred in not awarding proper amounts towards conventional heads, in view of the dictum laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case3, the conventional heads need to be accordingly revised. 16. Learned counsel for Insurer, on the other hand, contended that Tribunal has computed both income and age of deceased 6 2025 LawSuit(SC) 385 = 2025 INSC 366 21 CGR, J MACMA. No.76 of 2022 & batch based on the evidence available on record, particularly income has been assessed as ₹3,000/- on notional basis, therefore, the quantum of compensation determined does not call for any interference. 17. Coming to the aspect of income of deceased, though it has been claimed that deceased used to attend to work of lace and claimed to be earning ₹6,000/- per month, no evidence was placed even remotely suggesting the same. In the absence of any cogent evidence, Tribunal has proceeded to compute income of deceased considering her to be house wife on notional basis and fixed ₹3,000/- per month. Though Tribunal assessed the notional income as ₹3,000/- per month, considering that Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunita’s case6, while placing reliance on case of Rajendra Singh v. National Insurance Company Limited7, found that determination of income of ₹5,000/- per month in relation to housewife to be just and proper and that even the said case related to accident occurred in the year 2003, therefore, this Court is inclined to fix the notional income as ₹5,000/- per month. Considering the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s 7 (2020) 7 SCC 256 22 CGR, J MACMA. No.76 of 2022 & batch case3, the amounts under conventional heads also need to be revised, thus, the following compensation is awarded. S.No. Description of the Head Amount Entitled in rupees 1 Net Annual Income ₹5,000/- x 12 = ₹60,000/- 2 Future prospects (at the age of 58 years) ₹6,000/- (i.e., 10% of the income) Total Income ₹66,000/- 3 Deduction towards personal expenditure (i.e., 1/3rd) ₹22,000/- 4 Total Annual Loss of Dependency ₹44,000/- 5 Multiplier of 9 for the age of 58 years 9 x ₹44,000/- = ₹3,96,000/- Conventional Heads: 6 (i) Loss of consortium (1 claimant) ₹48,400/- (ii) Loss of Estate ₹18,150/- (iii) Funeral expenses ₹18,150/- 7. Total Compensation ₹4,80,700/- 18. Total Compensation ₹4,80,700/- 18. In the result, appeals preferred by the Insurer in M.A.C.M.A. Nos.502 and 503 of 2021 stand dismissed, and appeals preferred by claimants in MACMA Nos.84 and 76 of 2022 stand partly allowed in the following terms: (i) Claimant is awarded compensation of ₹6,17,780/- in MACMA No.84 of 2022 as just and fair, with interest @ 7.5% per 23 CGR, J MACMA. No.76 of 2022 & batch annum thereon from the date of claim petition till realization and ₹4,80,700/- in MACMA No.76 of 2022 as just and fair, with interest @ 7.5% per annum thereon from the date of claim petition till realization. (ii) The 3rd respondent – Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount, after deducting the amount, if any, already paid, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (iii) On such deposit being made, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same. In the event if the compensation amount is not deposited, claimant is at liberty to take steps for recovery in accordance with law. (iv) Entire costs in this case are awarded in favour of the claimant before the Tribunal. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. _______________________ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J 15.09.2025 SS