APHC010509772021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Friday, the Twenty Eighth day of February Two Thousand and Twenty Five The Honourable M Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Between: Bingimala Sameer Kumar Guptha and o and Y Krishna Mohan Reddy and Counsel for the Appellant( 1. M S P KAMARAJU Counsel for the Respondent( 1. MANIMMA MEDIDA The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Friday, the Twenty Eighth day of February Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms Justice B S Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.22 of 2022 gimala Sameer Kumar Guptha and others ...Appellant Y Krishna Mohan Reddy and others ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant(s): M S P KAMARAJU Counsel for the Respondent(s): MANIMMA MEDIDA The Court made the following: [3311] 2022 Appellant(s) Respondent(s) 2 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.22 of 2022 THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI M.A.C.M.A.No.22 of 2022 JUDGMENT: The appellants who are the parents of the deceased preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for enhancement of compensation amount. 2. The appellants, on account of the death of the deceased B. Maruthi Kumar, who died in an accident filed a claim petition vide M.V.O.P.No.4 of 2017 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- VI Additional District Judge, Kurnool (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’). The appellant No.1 is the father and appellant No.2 is the mother of B. Maruthi Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’). 3. The case of the appellants is as follows: a. On 10.10.2016, the deceased and his father went to Hyderabad from Nandyal for treatment of the deceased and after completion of their work, they boarded the BRS travel bus bearing No.AP-02W-4849 to go to Nandyal. At about 1 a.m., when they reached near Kothur village on National Highway No.44 road, the driver of the bus drove it in a rash and negligent manner and in the process of overtaking a lorry bearing No.KA-22A-0103 going in front of the bus dashed against the lorry. As a result, the deceased, his father and some other passengers in the bus received severe injuries. The deceased who received bleeding injuries on his chest, head and also multiple injuries was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. On the advice of doctors there, he was shifted to KIMS Hospital, Nandyal, for better treatment. The deceased died on the same day at 05.40 a.m., while undergoing treatment. 3 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.22 of 2022 b. The deceased was aged about 19 years and prior to the accident, he was hale and healthy and pursuing 2nd year intermediate course (BiPC) in a prestigious college and had good prospects of securing a good job and the appellants were dependants on the earnings of the deceased. The appellants claimed a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased. c. The 1st respondent is the owner of the BRS travel bus bearing No.AP-02W-4849, the 2nd respondent is its insurer and the 3rd respondent is the driver of the bus. d. The 1st and 3rd respondents did not file any counters and were set ex parte before the Tribunal. e. The 2nd respondent/insurance company filed counter contending as follows: The 1st respondent did not inform about the date of the accident, place, time and other particulars. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the bus bearing No.AP-02W-4849 as well as driver of the lorry bearing No.KA-22A-0103, and therefore, the owner and the insurer of the lorry are necessary parties and as they are not impleaded, due to non-joinder of parties, the claim is liable to be dismissed. The deceased was undergoing treatment at the time of the accident and the appellants failed to prove that the deceased died only on account of the accident. There was contributory negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles. The bus was not in a roadworthy condition and the driver of the bus did not have valid driving licence. Hence, the 2nd respondent need not pay any compensation. The petition is liable to be dismissed. 4 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.22 of 2022 f. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing No.AP-02W 4849? 2. Whether the deceased by name B. Maruthi Kumar died in the road accident? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, what amount and against whom? 4. To what relief? 4. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the appellants, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and exhibits A1 to A12 were marked. The respondents did not adduce any evidence, but, exhibit B1, policy copy, was marked. 5. On the basis of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal answered issues No.1 and 2 in favour of the claimants, meaning thereby, it was held by the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing No. AP-02W-4849. On the question of compensation, though the claimants claimed a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-, as the deceased was a non- earning member, the Tribunal took the notional income of the deceased at Rs.25,000/- per annum, applied the multiplier of ‘15’ and arrived the loss of dependency at Rs.3,75,000/-. A sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- toward transport charges were awarded. Thus, in all, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,10,000/- with interest and costs to the claimants and directed respondents 1 to 3 to pay the 5 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.22 of 2022 compensation jointly and severally within one month from the date of the order impugned. 6. Heard Sri MSP Kamaraju, learned counsel for the appellants and Smt. Medida Manimma, learned counsel for the respondents. 7. The appellants raised the grounds in the appeal that the Tribunal granted meager amount of Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges and that the Tribunal did not award any amount for pain and suffering; damage to the cloths and other belongings of the deceased; loss of love and affection; loss of amenities of life of the deceased; loss of dependency and future income; and for medical expenses. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased was a 19 year old student of II year intermediate (BiPC) and would have earned Rs.60,000/- per month had he been alive. He further submitted that as per the decision in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 1 , the appropriate multiplier to be adopted is ‘18’, but the Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of ‘15’ and failed to award amount under the above stated various heads; the amount granted under the other heads also is less; and the rate of interest granted is also on low side as it should be 9% per annum. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contended that the compensation awarded is just and reasonable and it needs no interference. 1 AIR 2009 SC 3104 6 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.22 of 2022 10. It is settled law that it is the duty of the Tribunal to award just and reasonable compensation irrespective of amount or heads under which the compensation was claimed by the claimants. 11. As can be seen from the order impugned in the appeal, the Tribunal assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.25,000/- per annum and by applying the multiplier of ‘15’, a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- was awarded. And, in addition thereto, a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate; and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charges were awarded making a total of Rs.4,10,000/-. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the following decisions:- (i) Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi Vs. Ramkaran Ramchandra Sharma and another2. It was held in this case as follows: “9. …….In our considered view, the deceased was 19 years old and was pursuing his medical degree with good marks at the time of the accident. With respect to the future income of students pursuing professional courses we refer to Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and anr.: (2010) 10 SCC 254, wherein this Court held as under: 14. On completion of Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical) from the prestigious institute like B.I.T., it can be reasonably assumed that he would have got a good job. The appellant has stated in his evidence that in the campus interview he was selected by TATA as well 2 (2015) 2 SCC 180 7 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.22 of 2022 as Reliance Industries and was offered pay package of Rs. 3,50,000/- per annum. Even if that is not accepted for want of any evidence in support thereof, there would not have been any difficulty for him in getting some decent job in the private sector. Had he decided to join government service and got selected, he would have been put in the pay scale for Assistant Engineer and would have at least earned Rs. 60,000/- per annum. Wherever he joined, he had a fair chance of some promotion and remote chance of some high position. But uncertainties of life cannot be ignored taking relevant factors into consideration. In our opinion, it is fair and reasonable to assess his future earnings at Rs. 60,000/- per annum taking the salary and allowances payable to an Assistant Engineer in public employment as the basis.... 10. The Tribunal and the High Court have not taken into proper consideration that the deceased was a student of medicine at the time of the accident while determining his future income. The courts below have wrongly ascertained the future income of the deceased at only Rs. 18,000/- per month, which in our view is too less for a medical graduate these days. Therefore, the courts below have failed in following the principles laid down by this Court in this aspect in the above case. The deceased was a diligent and outstanding student of medicine who could have pursued his M.D. after his graduation and reached greater heights. Today, medical practice is one of the most sought after and rewarding 8 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.22 of 2022 professions. With the tremendous increase in demand for medical professionals, their salaries are also on the rise. Therefore, we have no doubt in ascertaining the future income of the deceased at Rs. 25,000/- p.m. i.e. Rs. 3,00,000/- p.a……” (ii) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur and others3 (iii) Ram Rati and another Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and others4; In this case, for a student of BE (Mechanical) from university, notionally income was assessed at Rs.30,000/- per month. 13. The decision in Satinder Kaur (supra) has been referred in Ram Rati (supra) which dealt with grant of amount under ‘loss of consortium’. In both the aforesaid decisions (supra), the decision in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. 5 , was referred as follows: “59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions: (i) … …. (ii) ……… (iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case 3 (2021) 11 SCC 780= AIR 2020 SC 3076 4 2023 SCC Online Del 4739 5 Neutral Citation: 2017 INSC 1068 9 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.22 of 2022 the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. (iv) 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. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. (v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore. (vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment. (vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. (viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.” 10 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.22 of 2022 In the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others6, compensation for loss of consortium is held as follows: “21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is loss of consortium. In legal parlance, “consortium” is a compendious term which encompasses “spousal consortium”, “parental consortium”, and “filial consortium”. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse : Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54. 21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of “company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation. 21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of “parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training”. 21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. 6 (2018) 18 SCC 130 11 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.22 of 2022 Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit.” 14. As the deceased was only pursuing intermediate education and there is no proof of his level of intelligence, it is baseless to assume his occupational prospects like in the cases cited. Even if the deceased cannot make the earnings as claimed by the claimants, at least, he can earn certain higher amount of income than Rs.25,000/- per annum as fixed by the Tribunal. Since it is all notional assessment, taking into consideration future prospects and personal expenses, it can be taken that the contribution of the deceased to the appellants is Rs.50,000/- per annum. 15. Coming to multiplier, the Tribunal applied the multiplier ‘15’. The age of the deceased is not in dispute. For a person aged between 15 to 20 years, the multiplier applicable is ‘18’, but not ‘15’. Therefore, by applying the multiplier of ‘18’, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.9,00,000/- (Rs.50,000/- X 18= Rs.9,00,000). 16. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation, which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims, or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case, where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of filial consortium. Thus, as per the decision in Pranay Sethi (1 supra), the parents of the deceased are entitled to compensation towards filial consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each. The Tribunal has not granted any amount under this head. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to Rs.80,000/- under this head. 12 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.22 of 2022 17. The amount of compensation granted towards transportation charges is very low. The deceased was initially shifted from the scene of accident to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, and from there to KIMS Hospital in Nandyal. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have awarded at least a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards transportation expenses as it would be reasonable amount. 18. It was further held in the decision in Pranay Sethi (1 supra) that the aforesaid conventional heads are to be revised every three years @ 10%. The Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and the same is maintained. 19. Thus, the appellants/claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.10,40,000/-. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,10,000/-. Thus, the enhanced compensation comes to Rs.6,30,000/-. The compensation awarded under various heads is shown herein below: Sl. No. Head Compensation Awarded 1 Loss of dependency (Rs.50,000/- X 18) = Rs.9,00,000 2 Loss of filial consortium (Rs.40,000/- X 2) = Rs.80,000 3 Transportation charges Rs.30,000 4 Funeral expenses Rs.15,000 5 Loss of estate Rs.15,000 Total compensation Rs.10,40,000 20. Accordingly, the respondents 1 to 3 are directed to pay the enhanced compensation of Rs.6,30,000/- (Rupees six lakh thirty thousand only) jointly and severally to the appellants/claimants with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of the appeal till the date of payment. The enhanced compensation along with interest shall be paid 13 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.22 of 2022 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 21. Subject to the above modifications, the appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI, J 28-02-2025 RAR