APHC010577402004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Thursday, the Sixteenth day of October Two Thousand and Twenty Five The Honourable Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 4513 of 2004 Between: National Insurance Co. Ltd. Bandi Mythili and others Counsel for the appellant: 1. Suri Babu Puppala Counsel for the respondents: 1. P. Sridhar Reddy Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 1970 of 2004 Between: Bandi Mythili& another K. Sankaran & another Counsel for the appellants: 1. P. Sridhar Reddy Counsel for the respondents: 1. S.A.V. Ratnam IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Thursday, the Sixteenth day of October Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms.Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.4513, 1970, 2064 and 2005 of 2004 Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 4513 of 2004 National Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant and Mythili and others ...Respondents Counsel for the appellant: Counsel for the respondents: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 1970 of 2004 ...Appellants and ...Respondents Counsel for the appellants: Counsel for the respondents: [3311] Nos.4513, 1970, 2064 and 2005 of 2004 ...Appellant ...Respondents ...Appellants ...Respondents 2 BSB,J C.M.A.No.2064 of 2004 & batch Dt.16.10.2025 Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 2064 of 2004 Between: Sontham Venkata Mohan Reddy ...Appellant and K.Sankaran& another ...Respondents Counsel for the appellant: 1. P.Sridhar Reddy Counsel for the respondents: Nil Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 2005 of 2004 Between: BandiMythili& another ...Appellants and K.Sankaran& another ...Respondents Counsel for the appellants: 1. P.Sridhar Reddy Counsel for the respondents: 1. S.A.V. Ratnam The Court made the following: 3 BSB,J C.M.A.No.2064 of 2004 & batch Dt.16.10.2025 COMMON JUDGMENT: 1. (a) C.M.A.No.4513 of 2004 is filedby the insurance company against the judgment and decree dated 15.03.2004, passed in O.P.No.781 of 1999 on the file of the Court of I Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore. (b) C.M.A.No.1970 of 2004 is filedby the claimants / petitioners against the judgment and decree dated 15.03.2004, passed in O.P.No.781 of 1999 on the file of the Court of I Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore. O.P.No.781 of 1999 was filed seeking compensation of Rs.20,34,000/- for the death of Bandi Chandra Sekhar Reddy, by his daughter and his mother. 2. C.M.A.No.2005 of 2004 is filedby the claimants / petitioners against the judgment and decree dated 15.03.2004, passed in O.P.No.782 of 1999 on the file of the Court of I Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore. O.P.No.782 of 1999 was filed seeking compensation of Rs.11,39,000/- for the death of Bandi Vasanta, by her daughter and her mother-in-law. 3. C.M.A.No.2064 of 2004 is filedby the claimants / petitioners against the judgment and decree dated 15.03.2004, passed in O.P.No.779 of 1999 on the file of the Court of I Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore. O.P.No.779 of 1999 was filed seeking compensation of Rs.14,90,000/- for the death of Sontham Sharmila by her husband. 4. Since all these claims arose out of the same accident, the Tribunal passed a common order in these claim petitions along with 4 BSB,J C.M.A.No.2064 of 2004 & batch Dt.16.10.2025 some other claims arising out of the same accident. For the same reason, all these appeals were heard together and disposed by a common judgment. 5. The common case of the claimants in all the petitions is briefly stated as follows: a. On 07.06.1999, Bandi Chandra Sekhar Reddy was driving a car bearing No.PY-01-A-3377, in which his wife (Bandi Vasanta), daughter (Sontham Sharmila) and grandson (Sontham Sathviq) were travelling. Near Perimal Muthyammal Temple, Kovipet, at about 10 A.M., a mini lorry bearing No. PY-01-0522, coming in wrong direction, dashed against the car and dragged it for about 100 yards as its driver lost control over it, when drove it at high speed. As a result, the car was completely damaged and Bandi Chandra Sekhar Reddy, his daughter and grandson died on the spot; and his wife sustained multiple injuries. Six hours later, while undergoing treatment at the Government General Hospital, Chennai, his wife succumbed to the injuries. b. The respondent No.1 was the owner and the respondent No.2 was the insurer of the mini lorry. c. The respondent No.1 remained ex parte. d. The respondent No.2 / insurance company filed counters opposing the claims. C.M.A.No.1970 of 2004 and C.M.A.No.4513 of 2004 6. The claimants in O.P.No.781 of 1999 contended that Bandi Chandra Sekhar Reddy was aged about 52 years and earning Rs.21,516/- per month as SCI / Engineer – SF (Superintending Engineer) in SHAR Project at Sriharikota, Nellore District. He had a valid driving license. The driver of the mini lorry also had a driving 5 BSB,J C.M.A.No.2064 of 2004 & batch Dt.16.10.2025 licence. B. Vasanta was aged about 46 years and hale and healthy before the accident. She was a home maker. S. Sharmila was aged about 28 years and earning Rs.30,000/- per month as a computer engineer. 7. Considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded Rs.13,38,943/- payable with proportionate costs and interest @9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 with joint and several liability. 8. The insurance company preferred appeal only against one claim in O.P.No.781 of 1999 by filing C.M.A.No.4513 of 2004. It challenged its liability contending that there was violation of the conditions of policy as the insured vehicle was driven by a person not holding a valid and effective driving licence. But, the same question has not been raised in the other claims. Though this contention was raised before the Tribunal, as no argument was made, the Tribunal observed that it need not go into that aspect. No evidence was also led on this point. Thus, the insurance company has no strength on this ground to challenge the award. 9. One of the important challenges raised by the appellant / insurance company is that the claimant No.1, being a married daughter of the deceased and independently staying in the United States of America, is not a dependent and not entitled to any compensation. The contention is not tenable for the reason that compensation is payable to a legal representative as per Section 166 of the Act and not just a dependent. So, both the claimants, viz., the daughter and the mother of the deceased are entitled to compensation. 10. The other ground of challenged by the insurance company in C.M.A.No.4513 of 2004 is about the quantum of compensation stating 6 BSB,J C.M.A.No.2064 of 2004 & batch Dt.16.10.2025 that the claim of the daughter of B. Chandra Sekhar Reddy ought to have been dismissed as she is married and independently living in the U.S.A. and not dependent on the deceased; that the age of the mother ought to have been taken for selecting the multiplier; that the age and salary of the deceased (B. Chandra Sekhar Reddy) were not duly proved; and that the net salary, not the gross salary, has to be considered to quantify the amount of compensation. 11. Thus, the insurance company has not challenged the finding of the Tribunal that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the mini lorry and that rash and negligence cannot be attributed to the driver of the car. 12. In the appeal by the claimants, in the case of death of B. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, they contended that the Tribunal granted low amount of compensation as it had not considered future prospects and deducted 1/3rd of the salary towards his personal expenses and adopted multiplier 7.68 instead of 11 applicable to persons aged between 50 and 55 years; that the Tribunal had not awarded compensation for loss of estate; pain and suffering and; amenities. 13. In the absence of contra evidence, the Tribunal has rightly relied on the salary slip. In this claim, no addition was made for future prospects. As per the decision of the Supreme Court, 15% increase shall be considered for salaried person aged between 50 and 60 years. At the same time, liabilities like income tax, professional tax etc., shall be deducted, but, it was also not done. Since income tax returns were not filed, it can be taken note that for the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 tax liability is as follows: 7 BSB,J C.M.A.No.2064 of 2004 & batch Dt.16.10.2025 up to Rs.50,000/- - Nil Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- - 10% Rs.60,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/- - 20% above Rs.1,50,000/- - 30% 14. Of course, various deductions were also permissible. In the absence of evidence, it is difficult to evaluate the actual liability. The deceased reached the maximum rate of tax at 30%, even if he is eligible for some deductions. 15. Under these circumstances, the increase for future prospects can be set off against deduction for tax for want of evidence. 16. Insofar as the age of the deceased is concerned, there is no evidence to disbelieve the evidence accepted by the Tribunal. 17. It is settled law that the age of the deceased shall be taken into account for the purpose of the multiplier. Therefore, as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr1 the relevant multiplier is 11. In the past, the Tribunals used to adopt multiplier as was done by the Tribunal by following the decision in Bhagwandas Vs. Mohd. Arif2. Thus, the Tribunal adopted 7.68 multiplier. Taking the monthly earnings at Rs.21,516/- as per salary certificate of the deceased marked as Ex.A2, the Tribunal multiplied the annual earnings at Rs.2,58,192/- by 7.68, and after deducting 1/3rd of the result towards personal expenses of the deceased, awarded Rs.13,21,943/- towards compensation for loss of earnings. But, the appeal being continuation of the original proceedings, the correct multiplier i.e., 11 is to be adopted. It is incorrect to contend that the 1 AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 3104 2 AIR1988 AP 99, 8 BSB,J C.M.A.No.2064 of 2004 & batch Dt.16.10.2025 Tribunal erroneously deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, since the number of the claimants are two (2). Therefore, annual contribution of the deceased after deducting 1/3rd of his income is Rs.1,72,128/-. The amount of compensation for the loss of contribution to the family is Rs.1,72,128/- X 11=18,93,408/-. 18. Apart from the above, the Tribunal granted Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate comprising loss of expectation of life, pain and suffering and loss of amenities to the claimants. It is conventional to grant loss of estate @Rs.15,000/- during that period. It is neither high nor low. No further amount can be granted separately for the heads included by the Tribunal. 19. The Tribunal further granted Rs.2000/- for funeral expenses. It is low, it can be increased to Rs.10,000/- to include transportation expenses as well. 20. Since no amount of compensation was granted for loss of consortium, each claimant is entitled to Rs.10,000/- (10,000+10,000). In total, 18,93,408+15,000+10,000+20,000=19,38,408/-. It can be rounded off to Rs.19,38,500/- 21. Therefore, the appeal by insurance company i.e., C.M.A.No.4513 of 2004 is dismissed and the appeal of the claimants i.e., C.M.A.No. 1970 of 2004 is allowed, with proportionate costs throughout the petition and appeal, by increasing the amount of compensation from Rs.13,38,943/- to Rs.19,38,500/-. The rate of interest @9% p.a. remains the same. The interest is payable from the date of the petition till the date of deposit. Both the respondents are jointly and severally liable. The amount, if any, already paid towards principal, interest and costs shall be adjusted only against them as on the date of such payment. 9 BSB,J C.M.A.No.2064 of 2004 & batch Dt.16.10.2025 C.M.A.No.2005 of 2004 22. The claimants in O.P.No.782 of 1999 contended that B. Vasanta was aged about 46 years and hale and healthy before the accident. She was a home maker. 23. The insurance company contended that the claimants, being the non-dependent married daughter and mother-in-law of the deceased (B.Vasanta), cannot seek compensation as dependants. Rejecting the contentions, the Tribunal granted only Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, payable with proportionate costs and interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization with joint and several liability of both the respondents. 24. The appellants / claimants contended that it is erroneous to decline compensation to the claimants treating them as not dependants, but they are entitled to compensation as legal representatives; that the services of the deceased as house maker ought to have been taken as Rs.10,000/- per month and adopt multiplier 13 as she was aged 46 years and; that compensation for loss of consortium ought to be granted. 25. There is no cross appeal or cross-objection by the insurance company. However, it resisted the appeal opposing the contentions. 26. Since the claim under the Act can be made by legal representative as per Section 166 of the Act and it is not confined to just ‘dependant’, it is erroneous to hold that the claimants are not entitled to compensation under heads other than loss of estate. 27. The service of a house wife can be notionally estimated. But, here the claimants are not spouse of the deceased. Yet, they are also 10 BSB,J C.M.A.No.2064 of 2004 & batch Dt.16.10.2025 entitled to her services, support and love. That apart, expenses shall be compensated. 28. Taking into account the status of the claimants, the value of the services is estimated as Rs.2,000/- per month. No addition or reduction is required. Annual value is Rs.24,000/-. Since the deceased was aged 46 years, multiplier is ‘13’. The resultant amount of loss of services is Rs.24,000/-X13=Rs.3,12,000/-. 29. In addition to it, loss of estate of Rs.15,000/- granted to the claimants by the Tribunal is sustainable. As per the entitlement, already noted, compensation of Rs.20,000/- (each Rs.10,000/-+10,000/-) under the head of loss of consortium, love and affection for both claimants together is granted and Rs.10,000/- for expenses of funeral ceremonies and transportation of dead body is granted. Thus, in total, the compensation payable is Rs.3,57,000/- (Rs.3,12,000+15,000+20,000+ 10,000). 30. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed, with proportionate costs throughout the petition and the appeal, by increasing the amount of compensation from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.3,57,000/-. The rate of interest @ 9% p.a. remains the same. The interest is payable from the date of the petition till the date of deposit. Both the respondents are jointly and severally liable. The amount, if any, already paid towards principal, interest and costs shall be adjusted only against them as on the date of such payment. C.M.A.No.2064 of 2004 31. The claim of the husband of deceased (S.Sharmila) is that she was aged about 25 years and studied B.Com and assisting her husband. So she is a home maker. The Tribunal observed that the claimant has to live as a widower for his life without the companionship 11 BSB,J C.M.A.No.2064 of 2004 & batch Dt.16.10.2025 of his wife and entitled to Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs.25,000/- for loss of service to the family and further Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate comprising loss of expectation of life, pain and suffering and loss of amenities. Thus, a total sum of Rs.50,000/- was granted as compensation payable with proportionate costs and interest @9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. 32. The claimant / husband / appellant contended that the services of a house maker / wife shall also be notionally estimated @Rs.3,000/- per month and she was aged between 34-59 years, compensation shall be granted by applying appropriate multiplier taking into consideration multifarious services rendered by her to manage family. He further contended that the amount granted under different heads is also very low. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that no amount of compensation was granted under certain heads, like expenses for funeral ceremonies, transportation of dead body etc. 33. As rightly contended, the value of services of a house maker cannot be ascertained with precision and underestimated. So, considering the year of death, the exact age of the deceased is not known (at one place her age is mentioned as 28 years and at other place, it is stated as 25 years). The multiplier applicable to person aged between 26 to 30 i.e., 17 can be adopted, and the value of her services can be estimated at Rs.3,000/- per month, being the spouse of the claimant. No addition for future prospects or deduction for personal expenses is made as it is value of service and for future services amount is paid in advance. Therefore, the amount for loss of services is Rs.36,000/-X17 – Rs.6,12,000/-. 34. Further, compensation for funeral ceremonies and transportation expenses @Rs.10,000/- is granted. As the Tribunal adequately granted compensation of Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- for 12 BSB,J C.M.A.No.2064 of 2004 & batch Dt.16.10.2025 loss of estate, no additional amount can be granted under these heads. Thus, in total, the claimant is entitled to Rs.6,47,000/- (6,12,000+ 10,000+10,000+15,000). 35. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed with proportionate costs throughout the petition and the appeal, by increasing the amount of compensation from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.6,47,000/-. The rate of interest @9% p.a. remains the same. The interest is payable from the date of the petition till the date of deposit. Both the respondents are jointly and severally liable. The amount, if any, already paid towards principal, interest and costs shall be adjusted only against them as on the date of such payment. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, in these appeals, shall stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in these appeals, shall stand closed. ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt.16.10.2025 PNV / NSM