APHC011395602016 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 NO: 100/2022 Between: 1. PARIMI ANANTHA SATYA HYMA PARVATHI, W/O SATYA SAI SURYA VARA PRASAD, AGED BOUT 45 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 13-5-13, KOVVUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL, WEST GODVAVARI DISTRICT. 2. PARIMI SAI TEJASWI, D/O SATYA SAI SURYA VARA PRASAD, AGED BOUT 421 YEARS, R/O KOVVUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL, WEST GODVAVARI DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. BEZAWADA SRINIVASA RAO, S/O SURYA RAO, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER OF LORRY BEARING NO. AP 05 W 7219, R/O D.NO. 15-57, MEENA NAGARAM VILLAGE, CHAGALLU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. B N V V GANGA BHAVANI, W/O SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER OF LORRY BEARING NO. AP 05 W 7219, R/O D.NO. 15-57, MEENA NAGARAM VILLAGE, CHAGALLU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2 3. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, DONDAPARTHY, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toThe order dated 11.12.2015 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 81/2014, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - IX Additional District Judges Court, West Godavari District, Kovvur. IA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GUDI SRINIVASU 2. 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 100/2022 JUDGMENT: Present appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Accidents Act, 1988 (for brevity <the Act=), assailing order dated 11.12.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.81 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge, West Godavari District, being dissatisfied with the award of compensation. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: (a) This is a case of death. Appellants/claimants are wife and unmarried daughter of the deceased. The deceased, aged 49 years, was stated to be working as A-Grade Fitter in V.V.S. Sugars, Chagallu and was earning Rs.13,783/- as monthly salary. He is stated to have met with accident while proceedings on his motor cycle, which was hit by lorry bearing No. AP 05 7219, driven by the respondent No.1 in rash and negligent manner. The deceased sustained injuries and succumbed on the spot. The incident is stated to have been reported to the police and crime No. 126 of 2013 came to be registered and after conducting enquiry, laid charge sheet 4 against the driver of the lorry. Based on aforesaid facts, the claimants have instituted claim under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. Respondent Nos.1 & 2, driver & owner of the vehicle, remained ex parte before the Tribunal. (b) Respondent No.3-Insurer filed written statement denying the manner in which the accident occurred and that driver of offending vehicle was negligent and drove the lorry causing the accident, besides also disputing age, avocation and income of the deceased. (c) The Tribunal has framed the following issues for consideration: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No. AP 05 W 7219 by the first respondent? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, the quantum and payable by whom? 3. To what relief? (d) To prove the claim, 1st claimant examined as PW1, employee of company in which deceased worked as PW2 and eye witness as PW3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7 and also Exs.X1 to X8. For respondents none were examined, however, Ex.B1-policy came to be marked. 5 (e) Tribunal, after appreciating evidence on record, answered first issue in favour of the claimants holding that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry. While considering the second issue, age of the deceased was assessed as 50 years based on Secondary School Certificate marked under Ex.A7. The income has been arrived as Rs.9,000/- per month, though claimants have produced evidence to show that the income of the deceased to be on higher side, based on the salary certificate marked under Ex.A6 and service register under Ex.X5 and salary slip for the month of March, 2019 under Ex.X7. Tribunal had deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses without awarding any future prospects and determined loss of earnings to the tune of Rs.9,36,000/- by applying multiplier of 13. It has also awarded Rs.1,75,000/- towards conventional heads, in total Rs.11,11,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of institution of petition till realization. (f) Assailing the same, to the extent of not awarding the compensation as claimed, present appeal is preferred. 4. Heard Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Gudi Srinivasu, learned counsel for the respondents. 6 5. Learned counsel for the appellants mainly contended that the Tribunal has erred in not considering the available evidence on record i.e., salary certificate (Ex.A6), service record (Ex.A5) and salary slip (Ex.X7) in the process of computing income of the deceased. The Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the deceased at least as show in the service record and definitely, it could not have assessed Rs.9,000/- per month, which is clearly erroneous. He further contended that the Tribunal has no reason in denying the future prospects, in view of law laid by the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi 1, therefore, claimants are entitled for future prospects as well. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurer tried to support the impugned order by contending that the Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence on record, has rightly assessed income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/- per month and the same cannot be found fault with. However, on the other aspect of future prospects, he fairly contended that the Tribunal ought to have awarded the same. 07. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions. 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 7 8. The point that falls for consideration before this Court is as to whether the quantum of compensation determined by the Tribunal is just and fair or requires to be enhanced? 9. The present appeal is assailed at the instance of claimants, who are dissatisfied with the compensation awarded. There is no challenge to the liability at the instance of the Insurer. The income of the deceased was claimed as Rs.13,783/- as monthly salary, being employee working as A-Grade Fitter in V.V.S. Sugars, Chagallu. In support of the same, the officer of employee-PW2 upon authorization, spoke about the employment and also salary being paid. The service record (Ex.X5), salary certificate (Ex.X6) and salary slip for the month of May, 2013 (Ex.X7) and also the statement of amounts credited to respective banks of the employees including that of the deceased (Ex.X8) were marked. The aforesaid evidence, in particular service record (Ex.X5), on glance of it goes to show that as on April 2013, the deceased was placed under pay scale of 5830-649-6408-50-12887-50 and salary slip for the month of May, 2013 indicates that he was shown to have been paid Rs.13,324.50/-. Though Tribunal has adverted to crucial evidence, it has only relied on the entries reflected in the bank account statements showing credit of various employees including that of the deceased, and considering the payments made from January, 2013 8 to June, 2013 ranging between Rs.7,500/- to Rs.8,900/-, has arrived at the income as Rs.9,000/- per month. Though technically the deceased was credited amounts ranging between Rs.7,500/- to Rs.8,900/-, the same by itself would not become income of deceased. His payment and salary fixation has to be seen from the perspective of the pay scale in which he has been placed, coupled with the salary slip which speaks of the same. Therefore, the Tribunal committed error in considering income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/- per month by ignoring aforesaid crucial evidence on record. Since the pay scale specified in service record would be valid piece of evidence, this Court is inclined to fix the income of the deceased as Rs.13,000/- per month. The age of deceased has been arrived as 50 years based on Secondary School Certificate (Ex.A7). The date of birth of the deceased has been considered as 29.09.1963. As the accident occurred and he succumbed on 08.06.2013, the age of deceased would be 49 years 8 months 10 days. 10. This Court is undertaking aforesaid exercise of calculating age, for the purpose of determining future prospects. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal ought to have awarded future prospects following the ratio laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case referred supra. 9 11. The claimants are entitled to the following amounts under the conventional heads of Loss of Consortium, Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses, i.e., ₹48,400/- (per claimant), ₹18,150/- and ₹18,150/- respectively, as was awarded in Rojalini Nayak and Others v. Ajit Sahoo and Others2. 12. Therefore, the compensation that the claimants would be entitled under the head of loss of dependency and other conventional heads, are revised as under: S.No. Description of the Head Amount Entitled in rupees 1 Net Annual Income. Rs.13,000/- x 12 = Rs.1,56,000/- 2 Future prospects (at the age of 49 years) Rs.39,000/- (i.e., 25% of the income) Total Income Rs.1,95,000/- 3 Deduction towards personal expenditure (i.e., 1/3rd) Rs.65,000/- 4 Total Annual Loss of Dependency Rs.1,30,000/- 5 Multiplier of 13 for the age of 49 years Rs.16,90,000/- (13 x Rs.1,30,000/-) Conventional Heads: 6 (i) Loss of consortium (2 claimants) Rs.96,800/- (Rs.48,400/- x 2) (ii) Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/- (iii) Funeral expenses Rs.18,150/- 7 Total Compensation Rs.18,23,100/- 2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1901 10 13. Therefore, the respondents/claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.18,23,100/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 14. Accordingly, The Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. Further, the respondent-insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount, after deducting the amounts, if any, already deposited, within eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Failing which, appellants/claimants are at liberty to initiate appropriate steps for recovering the same. On such deposit being made, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount, in proportionate shares, as provided under the impugned order. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 15.09.2025 ANS 11 541 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 100/2022 Date: 15.09.2025 ANS