APHC010843042015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3367] MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:186 of 2025 Between: Smt Vadla Kalamma and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND Md Mohiddin and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. G SRAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GUDI SRINIVASU 2. The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge at Kurnool (hereinafter called as „the Tribunal‟) in M.V.O.P.No.26 of 2009 dated 22.04.2013. 2. The appellants are the claimants, who are mother and sisters of one Vadla Anjaneyulu (hereinafter called as “the deceased”), before the Tribunal. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the owner and insurer of the Lorry bearing No.AP H 8485 (hereinafter referred to as “crime lorry”). 3. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: i). On 02.02.2008 at about 09.45 a.m., while the deceased along with his friend proceeding on Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing No.AP 9 AX 8469 to Pedda Chintala, when they reached Priyadarshini Jurala Project Dam, the crime lorry driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, which is proceeding ahead to the said motorcycle, applied sudden brakes, resulted the motorcycle of the deceased hit the lorry, the deceased sustained grievous head injury and died on the spot. ii). By the date of incident, the deceased is working in Renuka Wines and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. Being dependents, they claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- against the owner and insurer of the crime lorry. 4. The respondent No.2/insurer filed written statement and additional written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the accident occurred was due to negligence of the deceased, but not driver of the crime lorry; that a false is foisted against the driver of the crime lorry; that the driver of the crime lorry is not having valid driving license to drive the same and that the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: “1. Whether the accident took place as stated in the petition? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? and 3. To what relief?” 6. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondent No.2, its official was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.B.1 to B.6 were marked. 7. On the material, the Tribunal, having concluded that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the crime lorry by its driver, held that claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.1 and 2, for the death of the deceased in the accident. 8. It is against the said orders; the present appeal is preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. 9. Heard Sri G. Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Sri Gudi Srinivasu, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/insurer. 10. It is the only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants that the Tribunal erred in awarding less compensation to the claimants by not granting compensation under the head of future prospects as well granting only Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses and loss of estate, thereby, the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation in view of the settled legal position by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/insurer submits that the Tribunal after appreciating the material on record in right perspective calculated the compensation entitled by the claimants and that there are no valid grounds to interfere with the order of the Tribunal, thereby, the present appeal has no merits and liable for dismissal. 12. It is not in dispute about the death of the deceased in the incident, involvement of the crime lorry in the incident, rash and negligent driving of the crime lorry in causing the incident and that no appeal was preferred by the owner and insurer against the findings of the Tribunal. 13. Now, the only point that arises for determination is “whether the compensation awarded to the claimants is just compensation? 14. POINT: Coming to the just compensation is concerned, in the absence of substantial proof regarding the actual income of the deceased, the Tribunal rightly taken the monthly notional income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-, which comes to Rs.36,000/- per annum. 15. As per the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi 1 , 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 12017 (6) ALT 60 (SC) 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 paragraphs 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 Chandra4, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this (2003) 3 SLR (R) 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 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 to 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 19 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.50,400/- (Rs.36,000/- + Rs.14,400/-). 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.25,200/-. 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 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) 22017 (3) SCC 315 20. The appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 19 years is 18. The total loss of dependency is determined at Rs.4,53,600/- (Rs.25,200/-x18). 21. CONVENTIONAL HEADS:- On the point of the conventional heads, as per the judgment in Pranay Sethi case (referred to supra), Magma National Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Ors.3,Smt. Anjali and Others v. Lokendra Rathod and Others4,United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and ors.5andRojalini Nayak and others v. Ajit Sahoo and others6, this Court can award the enhanced amounts under the conventional heads of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. The claimants are also entitled for an amount of Rs.48,400/-towards loss of consortium, towards funeral expenses Rs.18,150/- and towards loss of estate Rs.18,150/- ,respectively as was awarded in Rojalini Nayak case(referred to supra). In total the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.5,38,300/- against the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 22. A brief exposition of the calculation made to arrive at the compensation is set out infra: S.No. Heads Calculation 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 4(2022) SCC OnLine SC 1683 5 (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1683 17 (2021) 11 SCC 780 1 The annual income of the deceased. Rs.36,000/- per annum 2 40% of above(1) to be added as future prospects (Rs.36,000/- + Rs.14,400/-) Rs.50,400/- 3 50%to be deducted as personal expenses of deceased. Rs.25,200/- 4 Compensation arrived at on application of multiplier 18. (Rs.25,200/- x 18) Rs.4,53,600/- 5 Loss of consortium Rs.48,400/- 6 Loss of estate Rs.18,150/- 7 Funeral expenses Rs.18,150/- Total compensation awarded(Rows 4+5+6+7) Rs.5,38,300/- 23. Therefore, in view of the forgoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal warrants interference by enhancing the compensation from Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.5,38,300/-. It is needless to say that the compensation claimed by the claimants on the remaining heads are not entitled by the claimants. Thus, this point is answered accordingly. 24. In view of the above discussion, the order passed by the Tribunal warrants interference only regarding quantum of compensation entitled by the claimants. As such, the appeal preferred by the appellants/claimants is liable to be considered. 25. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part, with costs, enhancing the compensation from Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.5,38,300/- with interest at 9% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization against respondent Nos.1 and 2.The respondent No.2/insurer shall deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of this judgment before the Tribunal. On such deposit, the claimant Nos.1 is entitled to receive the enhanced compensation amount with interest accrued thereon and she is permitted to withdraw the same. The rest of the terms and conditions, as well apportionment made by the Tribunal towards entitlement of compensation to the other claimants, in the order of the Tribunal shall remained intact. The claimants 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:30.06.2025 Krs/Knn