APHC010878682015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 517/2025 Between: 1. G SURYAKANTHAM @ SURYAKANTAMMA, W/O. LATE POTHIYYA AGE 50 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 13-7-45, REDDIYYA STREET 20TH WARD, BHIMUNIPATNAM VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT ...APPELLANT AND 1. GORRELA APPA RAO, S/O. APPALA SWAMY AGED 61 YEARS, DRIVER OF LORRY BEARING NO. AP 16 V 1010 R/O. D.NO. 16B-3-35, ANKAMVARI STREET, 17TH WARD CHODIDIBBA, ELURU WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. REDDY MAHESWARA RAO, S/O. ANJAIAH AGE NOT KNOW, OWNER OF LORRY BEARING NO. AP 16 V 1010 R/O. 20B-4- 58, GADIVARI STREET KOTHAPETA, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, TANUKU 4. M/S GRIPWELL RETRADERS PVT LTD, REP BY ITS PROPRIOTOR EX-OWNER OF LORRY BEARING NO. AP 16 V 1010 PLOT NO. 79, PHASE-III, AUTHOR NAGAR VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 CGR, J. MACMA. No.517 of 2025 Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act aggrieved by the order and decree dated 13.05.2015 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 222/2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum 1st Addl. District Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. S A V RATNAM The Court made the following: 3 CGR, J. MACMA. No.517 of 2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN M.A.C.M.A. No.517 of 2025 JUDGMENT: Claimant preferred present appeal dis-satisfied with the order, dated 03.05.2013, passed in M.V.O.P.No.222 of 2009 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru, awarding compensation of Rs.11,07,000/- on account of death of her son. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts relating to the present appeal in a nutshell are as follows: (a) Initially, claim came to be instituted under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for death of her son, who was pursuing third-year M.B.B.S. course. While, on 08.03.2007 he along with his friend were going to College on motorcycle bearing Registration No.AP 5 AA 4395 being pillion rider, lorry bearing registration No.AP 16 V 1010 driven by its driver dashed the motorcycle, resulting in the rider succumbing on spot. The pillion rider of the motorcycle sustained injuries and was shifted to hospital, where he succumbed on 09.03.2007. Mother of pillion rider filed present claim for 4 CGR, J. MACMA. No.517 of 2025 compensation of Rs.15.00 Lakhs on the basis that the deceased was pursuing third-year M.B.B.S. course at ASRAM College, Eluru, and had a bright future prospects and with expectation to earn upto Rs.1.00 Lakh per month. The incident was reported to Police and Crime came to be registered and after due investigation even charge-sheet was laid against the driver of the lorry. (b) Driver of the lorry and insurer contested the claim and present owner and previous owner of offending lorry remained ex parte. The driver of the lorry filed written statement denying that he was negligent and accident occurred due to his rash driving, rather the rider of the motorcycle, having lost control has dashed the lorry and therefore, he is not liable for either negligence or he mulcted with any liability. (c) Similarly, the insurer also filed written statement denying the manner in which the accident had occurred and that the driver of the lorry was responsible and negligent in causing the accident. Further, even the age, income and claim made were denied and disputed. (d) Based on the aforesaid pleadings available on record, the Tribunal has framed following issues: “1. Whether the accident dt.08.03.2007occurred due to rash or negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AP16V 1010 by the 1st respondent? 2. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash or negligent riding of the Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing No.AP5AA 4395 by its rider? 3. Whether the rider of motorcycle was not having valid and proper driving license at the time of accident? 5 CGR, J. MACMA. No.517 of 2025 4. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties, i.e., rider, owner and insurer of the motorcycle bearing No.AP5AA 4395? 5. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so, for what amount and from which of the respondents? 6. To what relief?” (e) In order to substantiate the claim, the claimant got examined as PW.1 and examined Vice Principal of the Medical College as PW.2; the doctor, who treated the injuries, as PW.3 and an eyewitness to the accident as PW.4 and lastly, classmate of deceased, who completed the course in the said College and working as Senior Resident of Dermatology Department of Asram Hospital as PW.5 and got marked Exs.A1 to A14. For the insurer, the Branch Manager of the company was examined as RW.1 and got marked Exs.X1 and X2. (f) Answering Issues 1, 2 and 4 together, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the accident has occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry, for coming to such conclusion it had relied on the evidence of eyewitness besides Ex.A1 FIR, Ex.A2 M.V.I. Report; Ex.A3 charge-sheet and Ex.A.4 death certificate. (g) Insofar as the issue relating to computation of income of deceased, the Tribunal has assessed the deceased notional income as Rs.20,000/- p.m., which was based on the evidence of PW.5, who stated to have been earning about Rs.30,000/- p.m. then and also relying on the Division Bench of this Court in B.Ramulamma v. Venkatesh Bus 6 CGR, J. MACMA. No.517 of 2025 Union1; after deducting 30% of the same as he had only completed three years out of six years course, determined the income as Rs.14,000/- p.m. Without adding up any future prospects, by considering the age of mother, deducted personal expenses of 1/3rd of the above and applying multiplier of 13, has assessed loss of dependency for Rs.10,92,000/-; towards conventional heads only loss of estate Rs.10,000/- and funeral expenses Rs.5,000/- were granted, in total Rs.11,07,000/- awarded along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Assailing the aforesaid quantum of compensation determined, the present appeal is filed by the claimant. 4. Heard Sri K.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the appellant/ claimant and Smt.S.A.V. Ratnam, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent Insurance Company. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant mainly contended that the income of deceased has been considered as Rs.20,000/- p.m. and that too by deducting 30% which is though on notional basis, is far less than contemporaneous earnings of any medical graduate and that the Tribunal atleast ought to have considered Rs.30,000/- p.m. on par with 1 2011 ACJ 1702 7 CGR, J. MACMA. No.517 of 2025 the earnings of PW.5, who was his classmate. In support of the aforesaid submission, he has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi v. Ramkaran Ramchandra Sharma2, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has considered to fix Rs.25,000/- p.m., as the income for MBBS student, who met with accident on 12.07.2002. Further, he also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bishnupriya Panda v. Basanti Manjari Mohanty3, which was considering an accident occurred on 27.07.2013, the income of deceased came to be determined at Rs.50,000/- p.m. By referring to aforesaid two judgments, it is contended that considering that in the present case, the accident has occurred in the year 2007, the income of deceased is required to be considered atleast Rs.35,000/- p.m. He further contended that the Tribunal though has determined income of deceased, has not added up future prospects and other amounts payable under conventional heads. He has relied on Meena Pawaia v. Ashraf Ali4, to buttress that even in case of student dying while pursuing studies, he is entitled to be considered for future prospects and that while applying multiplier, the age of deceased has to be taken into consideration rather than age of parents. 2 (2015) 2 SCC 180 3 (2023) ACJ 2393 4 (2021) 17 SCC 148 8 CGR, J. MACMA. No.517 of 2025 6. Opposing aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for 3rd respondent Insurer tried to support the impugned order by contending that the Tribunal has rightly determined income of deceased as Rs.20,000/- p.m. on notional basis and for coming to such conclusion, it had relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in B. Ramulamma v. Venkateesh Bus Union5, therefore, the income cannot be said to be meagre nor without any basis. Since the age of deceased was shown as 25 years, in normal circumstances, by that age, candidates would pass out from MBBS course and as in the present case, the deceased was only in third year MBBS course, it can be presumed that he was not such a bright student, therefore, the amount that has been awarded by the Tribunal is amply justified. With respect to future prospects, learned counsel for 3rd respondent Insurer fairly submits that the Tribunal ought to have considered the same. 7. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions of both the learned counsel. 8. Now, the point that arises for consideration in this appeal is: Whether the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation as sought for by her? And if so, what would be the just and fair compensation? 5 2011 ACJ 1702 9 CGR, J. MACMA. No.517 of 2025 9. POINT: There is no dispute with respect to the manner in which the accident occurred and that the driver of offending lorry was held to be negligent. The insurer is not in appeal against the impugned order. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Tribunal with respect to the negligence part hold good. The appellant has filed the present appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation on two grounds – one being the income assessed was not commensurate with the contemporaneous income of MBBS doctors, and second that future prospects and conventional heads were not considered in proper perspective. 10. Insofar as the first issue is concerned, the Tribunal has determined income of deceased as Rs.20,000/- p.m. which was a balancing act done considering the income being earned by P.W.5, who stated that he was earning Rs.30,000/- p.m., as on the date of deposition. The Tribunal considered that PW.5 while deposing has already completed graduation and also did P.G.in dermatology, has discounted Rs.10,000/- p.m. from his earnings and tried to balance in fixing the earnings of deceased as Rs.20,000/- p.m. However, by relying on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ramulamma’s case5, deducted 10% each for last three years of study i.e. 30% and arrived at 10 CGR, J. MACMA. No.517 of 2025 the income as Rs.14,000/- p.m. The Tribunal definitely tried to do some balancing work. No doubt, the deceased was in third year MBBS Course and stated to be aged 25 years. Merely because he was aged 25 years, nothing advert can be presumed on the age factor in pursuing the studies nor when there is any cogent evidence to show that he was not diligent in prosecuting the studies nor failed in any of semesters, his brightness and future prospects cannot be doubted. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi v. Ramkaran Ramchandra Sharma6, while considering the case of a 19- year-old medical student who met with an accident on 12.07.2002, fixed the income as Rs.25,000/- p.m. In arriving at the said income, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed in paras.10 and 11 as follows: “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. 11. The deceased was a diligent and outstanding student of medicine who could have pursued his MD after his graduation and reached greater heights. Today, medical practice is one of the most sought after and rewarding 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. ……” 6 (2015) 2 SCC 180 11 CGR, J. MACMA. No.517 of 2025 12. Even in the case of Bishnupriya Panda v. Basanti Manjari Mohanty7, the Hon’ble Apex Court while testing correctness of an order passed by the Tribunal as confirmed by the High Court in fixing the income of deceased as Rs.50,000/- p.m. on account of death of a student of 4th year M.B.B.S., upheld the same opining that the income determined at rate of Rs.50,000/- per month was justified. 13. In the case of Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi6, the accident occurred in the year 2002, whereas in the case of Bishnupriya Panda7, the accident occurred in the year 2013. In the present case, the accident occurred on 08.03.2007. Having considered the income assessed in both cases, and also the one that is assessed by the Tribunal, this court finds that the income of Rs.20,000/- p.m. as considered by the Tribunal is not justified and fair and that this Court is inclined to fix the income of deceased at Rs.25,000/- p.m. without any further deductions. 14. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has committed error in not awarding future prospects and also the compensation under conventional heads in proper perspective. 7 (2023) ACJ 2393 12 CGR, J. MACMA. No.517 of 2025 15. In Meena Pawaia’s case4, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that even in cases of the death of students and bachelors, future prospects are to be allowed. Paras.15 and 16 of the judgment read as follows: “15. It is not expected that the deceased who was not serving at all, his income is likely to remain static and his income would remain stagnant. As observed in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] to have the perception that he is likely to remain static and his income to remain stagnant is contrary to the fundamental concept of human attitude which always intends to live with dynamism and move and change with the time. Therefore we are of the opinion that even in case of a deceased who was not serving at the time of death and had no income at the time of death, their legal heirs shall also be entitled to future prospects by adding future rise in income as held by this Court in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] i.e. addition of 40% of the income determined on guesswork considering the educational qualification, family background, etc. where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. 16. In light of the above, in the present case, the claimants shall be entitled to future economic loss at Rs 14,000 per month. The deceased at the time of accident was aged between 21-22 years. Therefore, the multiplier has to be adopted/applied considering the age of the deceased and not the age of the parents thus, multiplier 18 would apply. Therefore, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs 15,12,000 towards the future economic loss. Claimants shall also be entitled to Rs 15,000 towards loss of estate, Rs 15,000 towards funeral expenses and Rs 40,000 towards loss of love and affection. Thus, the claimants shall be entitled in all a sum of Rs 15,82,000 with interest thereon at the rate of 7% p.a. from the date of claims petition till realisation.” 16. Accordingly, future prospects are awarded at the rate of 40% in terms of the ratio laid down in the judgment rendered in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi8. Further, as deceased was 8 (2017) 16 SCC 680 13 CGR, J. MACMA. No.517 of 2025 bachelor and considering that survived by sole claimant, 50% of the income is to be deducted towards personal expenses. As deceased was aged 25 years, proper multiplier of 18 to be applied. 17. Conventional Heads: On the point of the conventional heads, as per the judgments in Pranay Sethi’s case8, Magma National Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others9, United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Ors.10, and Rojalini Nayak v. Ajit Sahoo11, this Court award the following amounts under the conventional heads of Loss of Consortium, Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses, as ₹48,400/-, ₹18,150/- and ₹18,150/- respectively as was awarded in Rojalini’s case11. 18. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled for the compensation as mentioned below: S.No. Description of the Head Amount Entitled in rupees 1 Net Annual Income ₹25,000/- x 12 = Rs.3,00,000/- 2 Future prospects (at the age of 25 years) ₹1,20,000/- (i.e., 40% of the income) Total Income ₹4,20,000/- 9 (2018) 11 SCC 780 10 (2021) 11 SCC 780 11 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1901 14 CGR, J. MACMA. No.517 of 2025 3 Deduction towards personal expenditure (i.e. 50% ) ₹2,10,000/- 4 Total Annual Loss of Dependency ₹2,10,000/- 5 Multiplier of 18 for the age of 25 years 18 x ₹2,10,000/- = ₹37,80,000/- Conventional Heads: 6 (i) Loss of consortium (sole claimant) ₹48,400/- (ii) Loss of Estate ₹18,150/- (iii) Funeral expenses ₹18,150/- 7. Total Compensation ₹38,64,700/- 19. In the result, this M.A.C.M.A. stands partly allowed and 3rd respondent insurer is directed to pay the amount of compensation of Rs.38,64,700/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. and costs. The 3rd respondent insurer is directed to deposit the aforesaid enhanced amount of compensation before the Tribunal within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which the amount shall be recovered as per law. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date:13.08.2025. cs