APHC010014572023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI SATURDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.31 of 2023 Between: 1. Shaik Rafiuddin, S/o. Ghouse Mohiddin, Aged 46 years, Muslims, R/o. H. NO.1-205J-28A, Thotavari Street, 0pp. to Big water Tank, Tarlupadu Road, Markapur Town, Prakasam District. 2. Shaik Vahida Begum, W/o. Rafiuddin, Aged 43 years, Muslims, R/o. H. NO.1-205J-28A, Thotavari Street, 0pp. to Big water Tank, Tarlupadu Road, Markapur Town, Prakasam District. ...Appellants/Petitioners AND 1. Pilli Kishore, S/o.Krishna, Aged 24 years. Driver of the Komatia Travels Bus Bearing No. AP 26 TO 9512, SC Mala, Chinnaigudem Village, Devarapalli Mandal, West Godavari District. 2. Konduru Jananrdhanareddy, S/o. Rama Lingareddy, Owner of the bus AP 26 TC 9512, R/o. D.No. 25-2-1119, Siromani Nagar, Police Colony, A.K.Nagar, Nellore Rural, SPSR Nellore District. 3. United India Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager, Biruduraju Towers, Trunk Road, Ongole, Prakasam District. ...Respondents/ Respondents V • -A- 4. : fi ■Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, aggrieved by the decree and ^afd. passed in M.V.O.P No.376 of 2016 dated 08.11.2021, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District. ■ This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of Petition, the Order and Decree of the Trial Court and the material papers in the Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Nuthalapati Krishna Murthy, Advocate for the Appellants, none appeared for Respondent Nos.1, & 2 and of Sri Gudi Srinivasu,Advocatefor RespondentNo.3. This Court doth Order and decree as follows: 1. That the appeal be and is hereby allowed; 2. That Appellants/Claimants be and are hereby awarded compensation of f24,01,100/- as just and fair, with interest @ 7.5% per annum thereon from the date of claim petition till realization; 3. That the 3’’^ respondent - Insurer be and is hereby directed to deposit the balance amount of compensation as determined and awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned order, after deducting the amount, if any, already paid, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order; 4. That on such deposit being made, the claimants be and are hereby entitled to withdraw the same in equal proportions; 5. That respondents/ claimants are at liberty to take steps for recovery in accordance with law in the event if the compensation amount is not deposited; 6. That the Entire costs in this case are awarded in favour of the 1 claimant before the Tribunal. St Sd/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District. 2. Two CD Copies TK vna ■? . HIGH COURT DATED:30/08/2025 DECREE MACMA No.31 of 2023 17 SEP 2025 m 9^. Current Section ALLOWING THE MACMA f ■ V APHC010014572023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI SATURDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.31 of 2023 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, aggrieved by the decree and award passed in M.V.O.P No.376 of 2016 dated 08.11.2021, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District. Between: 1. Shaik Rafiuddin, S/o. Ghouse Mohiddin, Aged 46 years, Muslims, R/o. H. NO.1-205J-28A, Thotavari Street, 0pp. to Big water Tank, Tarlupadu Road, Markapur Town, Prakasam District. 2. Shaik Vahida Begum, W/o. Rafiuddin, Aged 43 years, Muslims, R/o. H. NO.1-205J-28A, Thotavari Street, 0pp. to Big water Tank, Tarlupadu Road, Markapur Town, Prakasam District. ...Appellants/Petitioners AND 1. Pilli Kishore, S/o.Krishna, Aged 24 years. Driver of the Komatia Travels Bus Bearing No. AP 26 TC 9512, SC Mala, Chinnaigudem Village, Devarapalli Mandal, West Godavari District. 2. Konduru Jananrdhanareddy, S/o. Rama Lingareddy, Owner of the bus AP 26 TC 9512, R/o. D.No. 25-2-1119, Siromani Nagar, Police Colony, A.K.Nagar, Nellore Rural, SPSR Neltore District. L 3. United India Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager, Biruduraju Towers, Trunk Road, Ongole, Prakasam District. ...Respondents/ Respondents : Sri Nuthalapati Krishna Murthy Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : None Appeared Counsel for Respondent No.3 The Court made the following order: Counsel for the Appellants : Sri Gudi Srinivasu APHC010014572023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] SATURDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 31/2023 Between: 1. SHAIK RAFIUDDIN, S/0. GHOUSE MOHIDDIN, AGED 46 YEARS , 2.SHAIK VAHIDA BEGUM,, W/O. RAFIUDDIN, AGED 43 YEARS BOTH ARE MUSLIMS, R/0. H. NO.1-205J-28A, THOTAVARI STREET, OPR TO BIG WATER TANK, TARLUPADU ROAD MARKAPUR TOWN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...APP^LLANT(S) AND 1.PILLI KISHORE, S/O.KRISHNA, AGED 24 YEARS,DRIVER OF THE KOMATLA TRAVELS BUS BEARING NO. AP 26 TC 9512 SC MALA CHINNAIGUDEM VILLAGE , DEVARAPALLI MANDAL WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. RAMA LINGAREDDY, 2.KONDURU JANANRDHANAREDDY, S/O. THE BUS AP 26 TC 9512 R/0. D.NO. 25-2-1119, OWNER OF SIROMANI NAGAR, POLICE COLONY, A.K.NAGAR, NELLORE RURAL SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER, BIRUDURAJU TOWERS, TRUNK ROAD ONGOLE , PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ITS ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be memorandum of appeal being aggrieved by the decree and , on the file of pleased tothis award passed in M.V.O.P No.376 of 2016 dated. 08.11.2021 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum - I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE ,PRAKASAM DISTRICT AT ONGOLE lA NO: 1 OF 202.^ Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated iti the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Nr?7R M V-O.P. No. 376 of 2016 dated 08.11.2021 ^ the file of the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum-1 AddI .District Judge, Ongole and to pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. NUTHALAPATI KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GUDI SRINIVASU 2. The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:31/2023 JUDGMENT: Present appeal is preferred assailing the order dated 08.11.2021 passed in M.V.O.P. No.376 of 2016 on the file of Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - I Additional District Judge, Ongole, dissatisfied with the award of compensation of f 12,84,600/- along with interest @7.5% from the date of filing of petition till realization. Parties herein will be referred to as they were arrayed before 2. the Tribunal. Brief facts of the present case in a nutshell are as follows: 3. Claimants who are mother and father of deceased instituted a) claim under Section 166 of M.V. Act seeking compensation of ^35,00,000/- for death of their child, who succumbed due to motor vehicle road accident. On 21/22.08.2016, while he was travelling in bus bearing No.AP 26TC 9512, which was proceeding to Kakinada from Guntur, in order to attend his second year M.Tech classes, on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of the 2 CGR, J MAGMA. No.31 of 2023 bus, the bus fell into NSP canal and turned turtle, thereby several passengers in the bus suffered severe injuries and on account of the same, not only son of claimants died but other passengers also succumbed. The deceased having completed B.Tech. in Civil Engineering stream, was pursuing second year M.Tech. and was . aged 23 years. The incident was reported to police and thereafter, crime was registered and upon investigation, charge sheet came to be laid against driver of the bus. Therefore, claimants have laid claim for ?35,00,000/-. 1 and 2"^ respondents who are driver and owner of the bus b) remained ex parte and 3'"^ respondent insurer filed counter denying the manner in which accident occurred and that the accident was due to negligence of driver of the bus, besides also denying the claim of compensation based on the qualification, age as claimed. In order to justify the claim, 1®* claimant was .examined as P.W.1 and eye witness as P. W.2 and got marked Exs.M to A16. Similarly, Administrative Officer of Insurer was examined as R.W.1 and got marked Ex.B1, besides examining Senior Assistant in Regional Transport Office as R.W.2 and got marked Exs.XI to X3. c) Based on the pleadings. Tribunal framed following issues: r 3 CGR, J MAGMA. No.31 of 2023 Whether the deceased Shaik Azharuddin died in a road accident which took place on 21/22.08.2016 near Nayakangudem Village at NSP Canal Bridge on Hyderabad - Kakinada road at about 2.30 A.M.. due to rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing No.AP 26TC 9512 by its driver? Whether the Driver of Komatla Travels Bus bearing No.AP 26TC 9512 is haying valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident? Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and against whom? 1) f 2) 3) To what* relief, the petitioners are entitled? Considering the evidence available on record, the Tribunal that accident has occurred on account of Sinqe the Environmental 4) d) has come to conclusion rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus. deceased was pursuing post-graduation in made that he was entitled for Engineering, though claim was considering monthly earnings of ?1,00,000/- per month, in absence material evidence, the Tribunal has assessed the income of of any deceased as ?8,000/- on towards personal expenses and awarding future prospects _ notional basis. After deducting half of the same, ultimately determined loss of dependency as Tov/ards conventional heads, an amount of ?15,000/- was awarded f 12,09,600/-. 4 CGR, J MAGMA. No.31 of 2023 towards funeral expenses, ?40,000/- towards consortium and ^15,000/- towards loss of estate and f5,000/- towards transport charges, in total compensation of ?12,84,600/- came to be awarded along with interest @7.5% per annum. Assailing the same, present appeal is preferred, dissatisfied e) with the compensation determined. Heard Sri Nuthalapati Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for appellants/claimants and Sri Gudi- Srinivasu, learned standing counsel, for 3"'^ respondent - Insurer. 4. Learned counsel for appellants mainly contended that the 5. Tribunal has erred in considering income of deceased as only ?8,000/- per month, ignoring the fact that he was engineering graduate and also pursuing masters in Environmental Engineering, having regard to his higher qualifications, the Tribunal should have alteast considered monthly income @ ?25,000/- per month. In ’ support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on judgment of Division Bench of this Court in B.Ramulamma and others v. Venkatesh, Bus Union\ wherein for an incident occurred in the year 1995, considering that deceased was studying final year in 2009 (6) ALT 784 A 'X * / ; 5 CGR, J MAGMA. No.31 of 2023 B.Tech. Computers, monthly income was assessed as f 12,000/- per month. Therefore, considering that the incident in present case occurred in the year 2016, he would submit that fixing the income as ?25,000/- per month would be reasonable. Further, he also referred to judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kumud Gupta and another v. Iffco-Tokio General Ins. Co. Ltd. And others^, wherein for an incident occurred in the year 2011, for a student of B.Tech. Computers Science income of ?20,000/- per month came to be determined, therefore, even adopting general escalation, . f25,000/- per month would be just and fair. Except for aforesaid ground, no other submissions are made. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent - Insurer tried to support the impugned order by contending that in the absence of any evidence on record, the Tribunal was justified in considering income of deceased as ?8,000/- on notional basis, therefore, does 6. not call any interference. Perused the record and considered rival submissions. 7. The only point that falls for consideration of this Court is as 8. to whether income of deceased as assessed by the Tribunal is just 2 2024 ACJ 658 6 CGR, J MAGMA. No.31 of 2023 and fair and reasonable having' regard to the deceased’s qualification of B.Tech. and pursuing second year M.Tech. in Environmental Engineering. There is no dispute with respect to occurrence of accident and that the deceased was pursuing second year M.Tech. course at that time. Since the insurer has not preferred any appeal against the impugned order, findings rendered by Tribunal with respect to determination of liability have attained finality. Therefore, the • occurrence of accident and negligence on driver of bus are not in 9. dispute at present. In order to assess the income of the deceased, the crucial aspect that needs to be considered is the qualification of the deceased. The claimants contend that deceased was graduate in Bachelors of Engineering in Civil Engineering Stream and further, he is pursuing Masters in Environmental Engineering in second In support of the said claim, Exs.AS, A9, A10, A11 and A12 are filed. In view of aforesaid evidence, one cannot dispute the factum of qualification acquired by the deceased. Now going by the qualification as per aforesaid Exhibits, as deceased was still pursuing Masters, one has to assess the income on notional basis. 10. year. 7 CGR, J MAGMA. No.31 of2023 Before the Tribunal, claim was made for ?1,00,000/- towards monthly salary. Though the Tribunal has not disbelieved the qualification of the deceased, in the absence of any material in specific to show that deceased was capable of earning ,00,000/- per month, assessed merely ?8,000/- per month on notional basis. There is no rationality or any reasoning in assessing f8,000/- per month. In the judgment of B.Ramulamma’s case'', referred to by learned counsel for appellant, considering that deceased was final year Engineering Student, and that the accident occurred on 01.05.1995, this Court has observed as follows:- “51. In view of the present salaries, being earned by the Computer Engineers, there cannot be any doubt to say that the deceased would have earned minimum Rs. 12,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- per month. It has to be seen that nowadays IVth class employees are also getting minimum Rs.7,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month depending upon their service. The Junior Assistants are also getting Rs. 12,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- per month. Therefore, considering the normal scales being earned by the Government employees and also the minimum wage scales fixed to the technical persons, we are of the view that the minimum salary of a technical person, who is holding a bachelor degree in computers or electronics or mechanical, can be taken as Rs. 12,000/- per month. Therefore, the income of the graduates in engineering i.e., 8 CGR, J magma. No.3] of 2023 B.Tech., cannot be fixed less than Rs. otherwise it amounts to 12,000/- per month neglecting the ground of reality. Similarly those who have completed M.Tech., the income of such MCA., MBA., persons can be fixed a little higher at Rs.15,000/- per month. This will take i.e. care of the additional in course of their income which they would have earned i service. It. Even the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kumud Gupta’s case^, while, dealing with case of determination of account of death of engineering student, for occurred on 21.04.2011 has assessed the i ’ ?20,000/- per month. compensation on an accident that has income of deceased as 12. The above two referred judgments definitely guidance in the throw some process of determination of income of the deceased, as deceased had already completed graduation in civil engineering and pursuing further studies of masters, his stream of graduation, though the that of graduation i Considering same cannot be equated with in computer engineering, by providing general index of escalation, theiincome of deceased is hereby assessed as ^15,000/- per month as on 22.08.2016. < - / 9 CGR, J MAGMA. No.31 of 2023 / Even the Hon’ble Apex Court in Meena Pawaia and others V. Ashraf Ali and others^ while dealing with determination of compensation on account of death occurred on 12.09.2012, as deceased was third year Civil Engineering student, the income came to be assessed as ?10,000/- per month. The amount that has been determined herein, is justifiable in view of the guidance . factors those are set out in the judgments referred to above. 13. Accordingly, considering the income of deceased as ?15,000/- per month, the compensation stands worked out 14. as follows; Amount Entitled in rupees Description of the Head S.No. ?15,000/-x 12 = ^1,80,000/- Net Annual Income 1 ?72,000/- (i.e., 40% of the income) Future prospects (at the age of 23 years) 2 ^2,52,000/- • Total Income Deduction towards personal expenditure (50%) ?1,26,000/- 3 ?1,26,000/- Total Annual Loss of Dependency 4 18 x?1,26,000/- = ?22,68,000/- Multiplier of 18 for the age of 23 years 5 5 (2021) 17 see 148 10 CGR, J MAGMA. No.31 of 2023 Conventional Heads; ?96,800/- (f48,400/- X 2) (i) Loss of consortium (2 claimants) 6 f18,150/- (ii) Loss of Estate 8,150/- (iii) Funeral expenses ?24,01,100/- Total Compensation 7 In the result, this M.A;C.M.A. is allowed in the following 11. terms: Appellants/Claimants are awarded compensation of f24,01,100/- as just and fair, with interest @ 7.5% per annum thereon from the date of claim petition till realization. (i) The 3'^'^ respondent - Insurer is directed to deposit the (ii) balance amount of compensation as determined and awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned order, 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 claimants are entitled to f withdraw the same in equal proportions. In the event if the compensation amount is not deposited, respondents/claimants are at liberty to take steps for recovery in accordance with law. 11 CGR, J MAGMA. No.31 of 2023 (iv) Entire costs in this claimant before the Tribunal. case are awarded in favour of the As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any, in this case shall stand closed. Sd/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District, (with recor s if any) 2. One CC to Sri Nuthalapati Krishna Murthy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Gudi Srinivasu, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, Amaravathi. (to dispatch the trial court records) 5. Two CD Copies VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at TK vna HIGH COURT DATED:30/08/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE - ) t SEP 2025 E . Current Section ^5^ ^esPATC«^^= MACMA No.31 of 2023 ALLOWING THE MACMA