APHC010029592022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 29/2022 Between: 1. JAKKAMSETTY SURYANARAYANA, S/O. (L) RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 53 YRS, . COOLIE, RIO. D.NO.2-205, KODIVARI MERAKA, THURPUTHALLU VILLAGE, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. JALCKAMSETHR VENKATALAKSHMI, W/O. SURYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 46 YRS, HOMEMAKER, R/O D.NO.2-205, KODIVARIMERAKA, THURPUTHALLU VILLAGE, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. JAKKAMSETTY PAVAN KUMAR, S/O. SURYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 28 YRS, R/O D.NO.2-205, KODIVARIMERAKA, THURPUTHALLU VILLAGE, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. JAKKAMSETTY KRISHNA, S/O. SURYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 25 YRS, R/O D.NO.2-205, KODIVARIMERAKA, THURPUTHALLU VILLAGE, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. LAXMIKANTA BEHRA, S/O. MAHENDRA BEHERA, AGED ABOUT 40 YRS, DRIVER OF TRUCK BEARING NO. OR 01 A 5558, R/O. OF AT/PO ERTAL, BASUDEVAPUR, BHADRAK, ORISSA. 2. PARAMANANDA DAS, S/O. BHASKARA CHANDRA DAS, AGED ABOUT 45 YRS, OWNER OF TRUCK BEARING NO. OR 01 A 2 CGR, J. MACMA. No.29 of 2022 5558, R/O. OF AT/PO ERTAL, BASUDEVAPUR, BHADRAK, ORISSA. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, (REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, RAJAHMUNDRY) ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the order and decree made in M.V.O.P. No. 139/2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims tribunal-Cum-First Additional District Judge, Rajahmahendravaram, dt. 23.04.2019. Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. PARIMI RAMA RAYUDU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. M SOLOMON RAJU 2. The Court made the following: 3 CGR, J. MACMA. No.29 of 2022 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN M.A.C.M.A. No.29 of 2022 JUDGMENT: Present appeal is filed by appellants/claimants dis-satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the order, dated 23.04.2019, passed in M.V.O.P.No.139 of 2017 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Rajahmahendravaram, (“the Tribunal”). 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) Claimants are parents and siblings of deceased Jakkamsetty Ravi Kumar. Deceased working as Lab In-charge at Tata Steel Plant, Kalinagar, aged 28 years, met with an accident near Military Chowk on 07.06.2016 while he was proceeding on motorcycle. The motorcycle was hit by Truck bearing registration No.OR 01 A 5558 driven by 1st respondent in rash and negligent manner. He suffered severe injuries and was shifted to Ashwini Hospital, Katak. After being in ICU, he succumbed to injuries on 16.06.2016. The claimants stated to have spent about Rs.2,20,000/- towards medical expenses. As deceased 4 CGR, J. MACMA. No.29 of 2022 was earning around Rs.32,000/- per month, the present claim came to be laid for an amount of Rs.67,00,000/- along with interest. (b) Respondents 1 and 2, who are driver and owner of the offending truck, remained ex parte. 3rd respondent Insurer of Truck filed written statement inter alia denying the manner in which the accident occurred and that the driver of the truck was responsible for the accident, besides, it also denied age, occupation and earnings of deceased. (c) Based on the aforesaid pleadings available on record, the Tribunal has framed following issues: “1. Whether the death of the deceased occurred was due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent driver of the offending vehicle i.e., Truck bearing No.OR 01 A 5558? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, and if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief?” (d) In support of the case of the claimants, 1st claimant got examined as PW.1 and eyewitnesses as PW.2 and PW.3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A15. None were examined for respondents. However, Ex.B1 policy came to be marked on their behalf. (e) On appreciation of evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident has occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending truck by its driver and therefore, determined the negligence accordingly. Further, concluded that the deceased died on account of the accident so occurred. Coming to the aspect of 5 CGR, J. MACMA. No.29 of 2022 compensation, based on salary certificate issued under Ex.A15, the deceased gross salary came to be assessed as Rs.30,863/-, however, after deducting income tax, profession tax, and also contribution towards public provident fund, net salary came to be assessed as Rs.28,676/-. Accordingly, the Tribunal has awarded compensation as follows: S. No. Heads Calculation 1. The annual income of the deceased after deduction of Income Tax Rs.3,34,419/- per annum 2. 50% of above (1) to be added as future prospects (Rs.3,34,419/- + Rs.1,67,209/-) Rs.5,01,628/- 3. 50% to be deducted as personal expenses of deceased Rs.2,50,814/- 4. Compensation arrived at on application of multiplier 16. (Rs.2,50,814/- x 17) Rs.42,63,838/- 5. Medical expenses Rs.1,84,021/- 6. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- 7. Love and affection Rs.15,000/- Total compensation awarded (Rows 4 + 5+ 6 + 7) Rs.44,77,859/- Aforesaid compensation came to be awarded along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation. Dis-satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appellants/claimants have preferred the present appeal. 4. Heard Sri Parimi Rama Rayudu, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Sri M.Siva Prasad, learned counsel, 6 CGR, J. MACMA. No.29 of 2022 representing Sri M.Solomon Raju, learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent Insurer. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants mainly contended that, (1) the Tribunal has erred in deducting the contribution made towards public provident fund while assessing the income of deceased. The Tribunal has deducted an amount of Rs.1,987/- paid towards provident fund from gross salary and accordingly, assessed net salary as Rs.28,676/-, rather it ought to have assessed the income without any such deduction. It is his contention that any contribution made towards provident fund or other special allowances cannot be deducted, rather to be added while considering basic salary of the victim/deceased for the purpose of arriving the income. In support of the same, he placed reliance on Meenakshi v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.1; and (2) he also contended that the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards love and affection, rather it ought to have awarded other components of compensation under conventional heads following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi2. 1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1872 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680 7 CGR, J. MACMA. No.29 of 2022 6. Per contra, learned counsel for 3rd respondent Insurer tried to sustain the impugned order under challenge by contending that the Tribunal has determined the compensation after duly considering the evidence on record and also applying the principles as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court under various components of compensation, therefore, does not warrant any interference and accordingly, pleaded for dismissal of the appeal. 7. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions of both the learned counsel. 8. Now, the point that falls for consideration in this appeal is: Whether the findings and judgment of the Tribunal in excluding or deducting contributions made towards public provident fund for the purpose of assessing income of deceased are sustainable, particularly, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'nle Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nalini3? And whether the compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and fair? 9. POINT: The aforesaid point has now been succinctly decided by various judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court. In Nalini’s case3, it was held that, allowances under the heads of transport allowance, house rent 3 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2252 8 CGR, J. MACMA. No.29 of 2022 allowance, provident fund loan, provident fund and special allowance ought to be added while considering the basic salary of the victim/deceased to arrive at the dependency factor. Later, following above judgment, in Meenakshi’s case1, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “9. Recently in a judgment dated 11th July, 2024 in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nalini and Ors. (Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.4230/2019), this Court held that, allowances under the heads of transport allowance, house rent allowance, provident fund loan, provident fund and special allowance ought to be added while considering the basic salary of the victim/deceased to arrive at the dependency factor.” 10. In view of the authoritative pronouncements made by Hon’ble Apex Court, there is any amount of doubt for adding the contributions made towards provident fund to basic salary for the purpose of assessing income. Therefore, the approach of Tribunal in deducting Rs.1.987/- being contribution towards PPF from the gross salary and assessing the income of the deceased cannot be justified. Hence, the aforesaid deduction of Rs.1,987/- towards contribution to PPF is added to the income of the deceased for the purpose of calculating his basic income. 11. Conventional Heads: On the point of the conventional heads, as per the judgments in Pranay Sethi’s case2, Magma National Insurance Company Limited 9 CGR, J. MACMA. No.29 of 2022 v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram4, United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur5, and Rojalini Nayak v. Ajit Sahoo6, this Court award the following amounts under the conventional heads of Loss of Consortium, Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses, as ₹48,400/- per claimant each, ₹18,150/- and ₹18,150/- respectively as was awarded in Rojalini’s case6. 12. In view of the above observations, the compensation payable to the appellants/claimants stands revised as follows: S.No. Description of the Head Amount Entitled in rupees 1 Net Annual Income Rs.30,663/- p.m. x 12 = Rs.3,67,956/- (minus income tax and education cess of Rs.12,150/-) = Rs.3,55,806/- ₹3,55,806/- 2 Future prospects (at the age of 28 years) ₹1,77,903/- (i.e., 50% of the income) Total Income ₹5,33,709/- 3 Deduction towards personal expenditure (i.e. 50% ) ₹2,66,854/- 4 Total Annual Loss of Dependency ₹2,66,855/- 5 Multiplier of 17 for the age of 28 years 17 x ₹2,66,855/- = ₹45,36,535/- Conventional Heads: 6 (i) Loss of consortium (4 claimants x Rs.48,400/- ) ₹1,93,600/- 4 (2018) 11 SCC 780 5 (2021) 11 SCC 780 6 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1901 10 CGR, J. MACMA. No.29 of 2022 (ii) Loss of Estate ₹18,150/- (iii) Funeral expenses ₹18,150/- 7. Medical expenses ₹1,84,021/- 8. Total Compensation ₹49,50,456/- 13. 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.49,50,456/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. 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, after deducting the amount, if any deposited earlier, failing which the amount shall be recovered as per law. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the same in terms of the Award of the Tribunal. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date:24.09.2025. cs