APHC010280232022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 311 of 2022 Between: 1. ATLA RAMACHANDRA REDDY, S/O MALAKONDA REDDY, AGED 51 YEARS 2. ATLA KOTESWARAMMA, W/O RAMACHANDRA REDDY, AGED 44 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF ATLAVARIPALLI VILLAGE, CHIRLADINNE POST, KANIGIRI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. KANCHUPATI KIRAN KUMAR, S/O RUBEN, AGED 28 YEARS, SC MADIGA BY CASTE, KOTTAPALLI VILLAGE, S.R.PURAM MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, DRIVER OF APSRTC HIRE BUS AP 27 TY 1881 2. VIRIGINENI NARASIMHA RAO, S/O MALAKONDAIAH, OWNER OF THE BUS BEARING NO.AP 27 TY 1881, KODIGUMPALA VILLAGE, PAMUR MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FIRST FLOOR, VIJAYA COMPLEX, DHARAVARI GARDENS, TRUNK ROAD, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 2 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.311 of 2022 4. AP STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, BUS BHAVAN, APSRTC BUS STAND, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.( HIRER OF BUS AP 27 TY 1881) 5. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC, RTC BUS STAND COMPLEX, ONGOLE ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. NUTHALAPATI KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KOTHA RAMA MOHAN 2. The Court made the following: 3 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.311 of 2022 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENTS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.311 of 2022 J U D G M E N T: The appellants/claimants, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, assail the order dated 28.02.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.158 of 2019 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-Principal District Judge’s Court, Prakasam at Ongole. By the said order, compensation of Rs.10,73,400/- was awarded to the claimants, who are father and mother of the deceased, along with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization, as against the claimed amount of Rs.25,00,000/-. 2. Parties will be hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) The deceased was stated to be pursuing first year of B. Pharmacy course at K.V.S.R. Siddardha College, Vijayawada. On 11.10.2018, she was going to her native village in a bus bearing registration No.AP27TY 1881. After passing Kanigiri and just before the deceased was to deboard, the bus dashed a stationed lorry from behind, as a result of which the deceased sustained severe injuries 4 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.311 of 2022 and died on the spot. The deceased was stated to be aged 18 years as on the date of accident, with an expectancy of income of about Rs.1,00,000/- per month. Therefore, the claimants preferred claim for compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. (ii) The 2nd respondent-owner of the bus filed counter, which was adopted by the 1st respondent-driver of the bus, stating that the bus was hired to 4th respondent-Corporation and insured with the 3rd respondent and that there was also negligence on the part of the deceased which contributed to the accident. (iii) The 3rd respondent–insurer filed written statement disputing the liability and contended that as the bus was hired by 4th respondent-Corporation and no additional premium was paid for such third-party hire, it is not liable to pay any compensation. It was also contended that the compensation claimed was highly excessive. (iv) The 5th respondent-Regional Manager of APSRTC also filed written statement, which was adopted by the 4th respondent, denying the manner in which the accident occurred and contending that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. (v) Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed following issues: 5 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.311 of 2022 “1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC Hire Bus bearing No. AP 27 TY 1881? 2. Whether the deceased Atla Lakshmi Jayasree, died in a road accident? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom? 4. To what relief?” (vi) In order to prove the claim, 1st claimant got himself examined as P.W.1, besides examining the conductor of the offending bus as P.W.2, and got marked Exs.A1 to A10. On behalf of respondents, the officer of insurer and officer of 4th respondent- Corporation were examined as R.Ws.1 and 2 respectively, and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. (vii) The Tribunal, after exhaustively considering the evidence on record, came to conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending bus. In reaching the said conclusion, the Tribunal had relied on Exs.A1 to A5, besides the evidence of P.W.2. While coming to the aspect of determination of compensation, basing on Ex.A6- SSC Certificate and also Ex.A3- Postmortem Report, the age of the deceased came to be determined as 18 years. For the purpose of assessing the income of the deceased, though the claimants claimed 6 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.311 of 2022 that her expected income would be Rs.1,00,000/- per month, the Tribunal, considering the totality of circumstances and precedents cited before it, has assessed her monthly income as Rs.7,000/-. By applying the relevant multiplier of 18 and awarding 40% future prospects and funeral expenses of Rs.15,000/-, the Tribunal has determined the total compensation amount to be Rs.10,73,400/-. Respondent Nos.1 to 3, being the driver, owner and insurer of the bus respectively, were held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation so awarded. (viii) Assailing the quantum of compensation awarded as not just and fair, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants. 4. Heard Sri Nuthalapati Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for appellants, and Sri Gudi Srinivasu, learned counsel representing Sri Kotha Rama Mohan, learned counsel for 3rd respondent-insurer. 5. Learned counsel for appellants primarily contended that the income of the deceased, as determined by the Tribunal, is far too low and the Tribunal ought to have considered her income to be at least Rs.25,000/- per month, having regard to her merit in SSC and Intermediate, besides bright future in the field of Pharmacy. To buttress the same, he has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in case of G. Suryakantham @ Suryakantamma v. Gorrela 7 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.311 of 2022 Appa Rao and others1 and Shaik Rafiuddin and another v. Pilli Kishore and others2. He further contended that the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and in view of the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi3, the claimants are entitled to amounts under other conventional heads. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for 3rd respondent-insurer tried to support the impugned judgment by contending that inasmuch as the deceased was only pursuing first year of B. Pharmacy course, the Tribunal has rightly assessed her income at Rs.7,000/- per month, and the same does not warrant any interference. However, insofar as the other components falling under conventional heads, he fairly conceded that the Tribunal ought to have awarded the same in accordance with the guidelines laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case. 7. Perused the record and considered rival submissions. 8. The only point that falls for consideration of this Court in the present appeal is as to whether the income of deceased, as assessed by the Tribunal in the process of determination of compensation, is just and fair or does it require enhancement? 1 MACMA No.517 of 2025 dated 13.08.2025 2 MACMA No.31 of 2023 dated 30.08.2025 3 2017 ACJ 2700 8 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.311 of 2022 9. The occurrence of accident and negligence on the part of driver of offending bus are not in issue in the present appeal. The insurer has not filed any appeal challenging the findings on liability or quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, this Court proceeds on the basis that the incident has occurred and that liability is to be fastened on the insurer. 10. The only contentious point that has been urged is with respect to determination of the income of the deceased. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.7,000/- per month. Before the Tribunal, the claimants have relied on the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in Gajraj Singh and another v. Pawan Kumar and another4 and the judgment of the High Court of Madras in Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kayalvizhi and others5. Basing on these two judgments, where the income of deceased students, who were pursuing 12th standard and B.Com. respectively, was assessed as Rs.15,000/- and Rs.20,000/- per month, the income of the deceased in the present case was canvassed to be assessed similarly. The Tribunal, having referred to these two judgments, declined to adopt either Rs.15,000/- or Rs.20,000/- as monthly income of the deceased in the present case, 4 2019 ACJ 1070 5 2020 ACJ 1827 9 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.311 of 2022 on the ground that she had just completed her Intermediate course and recently joined first year of B. Pharmacy course. 11. Learned counsel for appellants, by placing reliance on the judgments of this Court in G. Suryakantham @ Suryakantamma (1 supra) and Shaik Rafiuddin (2 supra), contended that though the deceased was pursuing first year of B. Pharmacy, her income is required to be assessed as Rs.25,000/- or at least Rs.15,000/- per month. In the above judgments, this Court has considered various other decisions which dealt with cases of students who lost their lives in accidents during contemporaneous periods and, accordingly, fixed the income of the deceased students. For the purpose of assessing the income of a deceased student, one has to keep in mind not only the course which the deceased was pursuing but also the merit of the individual and future career prospects based on that qualification. 12. Considering the totality of circumstances and the evidence on record, it is undisputed that the deceased had secured distinction in both SSC and Intermediate and was pursuing first year of B. Pharmacy course as on the date of accident. A candidate with B. Pharmacy degree in the present days definitely has considerable prospects, having regard to the robust pharmaceutical ecosystem in place in the country. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the assessment of income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month is 10 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.311 of 2022 not commensurate with her academic merit and future career prospects, and that it would be just and reasonable to fix her income at Rs.15,000/- per month. 13. Further, in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants are entitled for future prospects at the rate of 40% on the earnings of the deceased. So far as amounts payable under other conventional heads are concerned, as per the judgments in Pranay Sethi (supra), Magma National Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others6, Smt. Anjali and others v. Lokendra Rathod and others7, United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Ors.8, and Rojalini Nayak and others v. Ajit Sahoo and others9, the claimants are entitled to the following amounts under the conventional heads of Loss of Consortium, Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses, at Rs.48,400/- (per claimant), Rs.18,150/- and Rs.18,150/- respectively, as was awarded in Rojalini’s case (supra). 14. In view of aforesaid observations, the just and fair compensation to which the claimants are entitled under various heads, is hereby re-worked and determined as follows: 6 (2018) 11 SCC 780 7 (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1682 8 (2021) 11 SCC 780 9 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1901 11 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.311 of 2022 S.No. Description of the Head Amount Entitled in rupees 1 Net Annual Income ₹15,000/- x 12 = ₹1,80,000/- 2 Future prospects (at the age of 18 years) ₹72,000/- (i.e., 40% of the income) Total Income ₹2,52,000/- 3 Deduction towards personal expenditure (50%) ₹1,26,000/- 4 Total Annual Loss of Dependency ₹1,26,000/- 5 Multiplier of ‘18’ for the age of 18 years 18 x ₹1,26,000/- = ₹22,68,000/- Conventional Heads: 6 (i) Loss of consortium (2 claimants) ₹96,800/- (₹48,400/- x 2) (ii) Loss of Estate ₹18,150/- (iii) Funeral expenses ₹18,150/- 7 Total Compensation ₹24,01,100/- 15. In the result, this Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.10,73,400/- to Rs.24,01,100/-, payable with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization along with proportionate costs. The 3rd respondent-Insurance company is directed to deposit the aforesaid enhanced compensation, after deducting the amount, if any, already deposited, within a period of 12 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.311 of 2022 eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall be recovered as per law. On such deposit being made, the appellants/claimants are entitled to withdraw the same in proportionate shares as provided under the impugned judgment. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 23.09.2025 IBL 13 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.311 of 2022 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN M.A.C.M.A.No.311 of 2022 Dt: 23.09.2025 IBL