APHC010669352017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos: 1154/2017 & M.A.C.M.A.No.1154 of 2017: Between: 1. CH NAGALAKSHUMMA, YSR KADAPA DIST & 2 OTHERS, W/O.CHINTALACHERUVU SUBBI REDDY HINDU, AGED 49 YEARS R/O.D.NO.3/98, BUDDAYAPALLE VILLAGE CHINNACHOWK DISTRICT, AP 2. CHINTHALACHERUVU SUBBI REDDY, S/O.LATE PITCHI REDDY HINDU, AGED 53 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.3/98, BUDDAYAPALLE VILLAGE CHINNACHOWK PANCHAYAT KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, AP 3. CHINTHALACHERUVU SUJATHA, D/O.CHINTHALCHERUVU SUBBI REDDY AGED 28 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.3/98, BUDDAYAPALLE VILLAGE CHINNACHOWK PANCHAYAT KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, AP 1. GUNNAM VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA E G DIST ANR, S/O.VEERA SWAMY LORRY BEARING AP05 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos: 1154/2017 & 2136/2017 M.A.C.M.A.No.1154 of 2017: CH NAGALAKSHUMMA, YSR KADAPA DIST & 2 OTHERS, W/O.CHINTALACHERUVU SUBBI REDDY HINDU, AGED 49 YEARS R/O.D.NO.3/98, BUDDAYAPALLE VILLAGE CHINNACHOWK PANCHAYAT KADAPA, YSR KADAPA CHINTHALACHERUVU SUBBI REDDY, S/O.LATE PITCHI REDDY HINDU, AGED 53 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.3/98, BUDDAYAPALLE VILLAGE CHINNACHOWK PANCHAYAT KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, AP CHINTHALACHERUVU SUJATHA, D/O.CHINTHALCHERUVU SUBBI REDDY AGED 28 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.3/98, BUDDAYAPALLE VILLAGE CHINNACHOWK PANCHAYAT KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, AP ...APPELLANT(S) AND GUNNAM VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA E G DIST ANR, S/O.VEERA SWAMY, HINDU, AGED MAJOR OWNER OF LORRY BEARING AP05-TU 9645 R/O.D.NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3548] MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos: 1154/2017 & CH NAGALAKSHUMMA, YSR KADAPA DIST & 2 OTHERS, W/O.CHINTALACHERUVU SUBBI REDDY HINDU, AGED 49 YEARS R/O.D.NO.3/98, BUDDAYAPALLE VILLAGE PANCHAYAT KADAPA, YSR KADAPA CHINTHALACHERUVU SUBBI REDDY, S/O.LATE PITCHI REDDY HINDU, AGED 53 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.3/98, BUDDAYAPALLE VILLAGE CHINNACHOWK PANCHAYAT CHINTHALACHERUVU SUJATHA, D/O.CHINTHALCHERUVU SUBBI REDDY AGED 28 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.3/98, BUDDAYAPALLE VILLAGE CHINNACHOWK PANCHAYAT ...APPELLANT(S) GUNNAM VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA E G DIST ANR, , HINDU, AGED MAJOR OWNER OF TU 9645 R/O.D.NO.2-116-A, 2 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1154 & 2136 of 2017 GUMMALERU ALAMURU - 533 308 E.G.DISTRICT, AP 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP.BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER YAM, 1ST FLOOR, HOUSALYA BHAWAN, PRAKASAM ROAD, YANAM PONDICHERI ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC, aggrieved by the order and decree passed in M.V.O.P.No.267/2012 dt. 25-102016 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh IA NO: 1 OF 2017(MACMAMP 2264 OF 2017 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 to condone the delay of 67 days in filing the appeal and pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. D KODANDARAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P PHALGUNA RAO 2. T S RAYALU APHC010012142017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2136/2017 Between: 1. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, YANANI, 1ST FLOOR, KOUSALYA BHAWAN, PRAKASAM ROAD, YANAM, PONDICHERI. 1. CHINTHALACHERUVU NAGALAKSHHUMMA 3 OTHERS, W/O CHINTHALACHERUIRU SUBBI REDDY, AGE 44 YEARS, RIO D.NO.3/98, BUDDAYAPALLE, CHINNACHOWK, PANCHAYAT, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 2. CHINTHALACHERUVU SUBBI REDDY, S/O LATE PITCHI REDDY, AGE 48 YEARS, RIO D.NO.3/98, BUDDAYAPALLE, CHINNACHOWK, PANCHAYAT, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 3. CHINTHALACHERUVU SUJATHA, D/O CHINTHALACHERUVU SUBBI REDDY, AGE 23 YEARS, RIO D.NO.3/98, BUDDAYAPALLE, CHINNACHOWK, PANCHAYAT, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT 4. GUNNAM VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, S/O VEERA SWAMY, AGE NOT KNOWN, BUT MAJOR, OWNER OF LORRY BEARING AP-05-TU 3 M.A.C.M.A. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2136/2017 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, YANANI, 1ST FLOOR, KOUSALYA BHAWAN, PRAKASAM ROAD, YANAM, PONDICHERI. ...APPELLANT AND CHINTHALACHERUVU NAGALAKSHHUMMA 3 OTHERS, W/O CHINTHALACHERUIRU SUBBI REDDY, AGE 44 YEARS, RIO D.NO.3/98, BUDDAYAPALLE, CHINNACHOWK, PANCHAYAT, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. CHINTHALACHERUVU SUBBI REDDY, S/O LATE PITCHI REDDY, AGE 48 YEARS, RIO D.NO.3/98, BUDDAYAPALLE, CHINNACHOWK, PANCHAYAT, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA CHINTHALACHERUVU SUJATHA, D/O CHINTHALACHERUVU SUBBI REDDY, AGE 23 YEARS, RIO D.NO.3/98, BUDDAYAPALLE, CHINNACHOWK, PANCHAYAT, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT GUNNAM VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, S/O VEERA SWAMY, AGE NOT KNOWN, BUT MAJOR, OWNER OF LORRY TU-9645, R/O D.NO.2-116-A, GURNMALERU, GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1154 & 2136 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3548] MONDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2136/2017 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, YANANI, 1ST FLOOR, KOUSALYA BHAWAN, PRAKASAM ROAD, YANAM, PONDICHERI. ...APPELLANT CHINTHALACHERUVU NAGALAKSHHUMMA 3 OTHERS, W/O CHINTHALACHERUIRU SUBBI REDDY, AGE 44 YEARS, RIO D.NO.3/98, BUDDAYAPALLE, CHINNACHOWK, PANCHAYAT, CHINTHALACHERUVU SUBBI REDDY, S/O LATE PITCHI REDDY, AGE 48 YEARS, RIO D.NO.3/98, BUDDAYAPALLE, CHINNACHOWK, PANCHAYAT, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA CHINTHALACHERUVU SUJATHA, D/O CHINTHALACHERUVU SUBBI REDDY, AGE 23 YEARS, RIO D.NO.3/98, BUDDAYAPALLE, CHINNACHOWK, PANCHAYAT, KADAPA, GUNNAM VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, S/O VEERA SWAMY, AGE NOT KNOWN, BUT MAJOR, OWNER OF LORRY A, GURNMALERU, 4 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1154 & 2136 of 2017 ALAMURU-533 308, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High Court may be pleased to allow the MACMA and set-aside the order and decree dt.25.10.2016 passed in MVOP No.627 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa. IA NO: 1 OF 2017(MACMAMP 3833 OF 2017 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 condone the delay of 109 days in filing the appeal. IA NO: 2 OF 2017(MACMAMP 3834 OF 2017 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 to grant stay of all further proceedings including execution of the Order and decree dated 25.10.2016 passed in MV.OP No.627 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-Family- Court-Cum:: VI Addl. District JUDGE, KADAPA, , pending disposal of the MACMA IA NO: 6 OF 2017(MACMAMP 29153 OF 2017 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: 1. T S RAYALU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. D KODANDARAMI REDDY The Court made the following: 5 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1154 & 2136 of 2017 COMMON JUDGMENT: Heard, Sri Lakshmi Harish, learned Counsel representing Sri D.Kodandarami Reddy, learned Counsel for the Appellants-Claimants, and Mr.K.Vijay, learned Counsel representing Sri T.S.Rayalu, learned Counsel for the second respondent-National Insurance Company Limited. 2. Dissatisfied with the Order and Decree, dated 25.10.2016, in M.V.O.P.No.627 of 2012 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Family Court-VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa (hereinafter called as ‘Tribunal’), the Claimants-Appellants herein filed M.A.C.M.A.No.1154 of 2017, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. In contra, the National Insurance Company Limited filed M.A.C.M.A.No.2136 of 2017, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 3. Since these two Appeals arise out of the Orders passed in M.V.O.P.No.627 of 2012, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of these Appeals by way of this Common Judgment. 4. Sri Lakshmi Harish, learned Counsel representing Sri D.Kodandaramireddy, learned Counsel for the Appellants, submits that against the orders passed in M.V.O.P.No.627 of 2012 by the Tribunal, M.A.C.M.A.No.1480 of 2017 was filed by the Claimants therein and M.A.C.M.A.No.2114 of 2017 was filed by the Insurance Company before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court partly allowed M.A.C.M.A.No.1480 of 2017 and dismissed M.A.C.M.A.No.2114 of 2017. He further submits that the factum of occurrence of the accident and the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle were affirmed by the Division Bench and, therefore, the findings therein are squarely applicable to the present case. Learned Counsel would submit that vide the Order, dated 25.10.2016, in M.V.O.P.No.627 of 2012, the Tribunal has restricted the claim of the claimants 6 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1154 & 2136 of 2017 and failed to award compensation by not taking 50% future prospects of the deceased and also awarding Rs.1,00,000/- towards love and affection, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. 5. This Court, after due consideration of the orders passed by the Division Bench in M.A.C.M.A.No.1480 of 2017 and M.A.C.M.A.No.2114 of 2017, finds that these Appeals arise out of the same accident, which occurred on the midnight of 01.06.2011, while the deceased-Chinthalacheruvu Vinay Kumar Reddy along with three others and his driver were travelling in his Innova car. 6. Learned Counsel for the Appellants further submits that M.A.C.M.A.No.1154 of 2017 is filed by the parents and sister of the deceased. He further submits that in view of the pronouncements of the order of the Division Bench of this Court in M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1480 and 2114 of 2017, arising out of the same accident, he need not emphasize the issue regarding the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 05 TU 8645 belonging to the first respondent. In respect of the second issue, framed by the Tribunal, which was indeed taken note of by the Division Bench of this Court, as to whether the entitlement of compensation in respect of the Claimants therein, the Court has enhanced the compensation taking into consideration the ratio laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi1. 7. This Court accepts the arguments of the learned Counsel that the issue regarding rash and negligent driving has already been considered and decided by the Division Bench in the Appeals referred to above. Therefore, this Court does not find it necessary to re-examine the said issue. Accordingly, Issue No.1 framed by the Tribunal is answered in favour of the appellants. 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 7 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1154 & 2136 of 2017 8. The facts in the present Appeals and those in the Appeals before the Division Bench are akin when juxtaposed, and there is no dispute regarding the same and, therefore, with the consent of both parties, Issue No.1 is answered without going into the facts of the case in detail. 9. Coming to Issue No.2, framed by the Tribunal, which relates to the determination of compensation, the learned counsel for the appellants has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph No.9 of the Judgment under challenge and submitted that the Tribunal has grossly erred in hastily concluding that Engineering Graduates are presently unable to secure employment and that even Graduates are unable to obtain jobs with a salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. On the basis of the said submission made by the learned Counsel for the second respondent before the Tribunal, the Tribunal proceeded to fix the notional income of the deceased at Rs.1,00,000/- per annum. 10. The multiplier method was applied based on the judgment in N.Surender Rao and others v. B.Swamy and another2, wherein the income of the deceased was taken at Rs.12,000/- per month. The Claimants also relied upon another judgment in B.Ramulamma v.Venkatesh Bus Union3 to fortify their contention that, in the case of a B.Tech student, who died in a motor accident, the Tribunal had considered the income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month. 11. Disagreeing with the said contentions, the Tribunal fixed the annual income of the deceased at Rs.1,00,000/- and applied the multiplier method as laid down in the case of Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another4, wherein the multiplier for the age group of 21–25 years is ‘18’. In the present case, the deceased was aged about 21 years and, 2 2014 ACJ 2613 3 2011 ACJ 1702 (AP) 4 (2009) 6 SCC 121 8 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1154 & 2136 of 2017 therefore, the application of the multiplier ‘18’ is appropriate. As there is no rebuttal to the said finding, this Court confirms the opinion of the Tribunal in adopting the multiplier ‘18’. 12. As stated supra, the facts are not in dispute. The only contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellants is that, in the case of Engineering students, who died in motor accidents, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the notional income at Rs.20,000/- per month and applied the multiplier ‘18’, along with 40% towards future prospects. In support of the said contention, the learned Counsel for the appellants relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in S.Mohammed Hakkim v. National Insurance Company Limited & Others5. 13. In the said Judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellants, an elaborate discussion regarding the notional income of a student was made at paragraph 9, which reads as follows: “Now coming to the quantum of compensation. Admittedly, the age of the appellant at the time of the accident was 20 years, and he was studying in the 3rd year of Engineering College, Coimbatore. It is also not disputed that the appellant had lost his left leg due to the accident and thus, suffers from a 100% functional disability. While determining the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal had taken Rs.15,000 as the appellant’s monthly notional income and the same was affirmed by the High Court. However, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the appellant’s notional income ought to have been taken as Rs.25,000 per month.” 14. There is no reason for this Court to refrain from applying the principle and ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to above. The deceased herein was admittedly an Engineering Graduate, which fact has not been denied by either side. The only contention raised by the learned Counsel 5 2025 SC 749 9 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1154 & 2136 of 2017 for the respondents before the Tribunal, and reiterated in the present Appeals, is that Engineering Graduates are presently unable to secure employment and that even Graduates are unable to obtain jobs with a salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. 15. Mr.K.Vijay, learned Counsel representing Sri T.S.Rayalu, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company, would contend that the Tribunal has rightly fixed the notional income at Rs.1,00,000/- per annum. He further submits that even if the notional income is taken at Rs.20,000/- per month, instead of Rs.10,000/- per month, as fixed by the Tribunal, the income of the deceased, along with future prospects at 40%, would come to Rs.28,000/- per month, as per the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (fourth cited supra), which were subsequently upheld in Pranay Sethi’s case (first cited supra). Out of the said amount, 50% has to be deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased and, therefore, the contribution of the deceased to his family would be Rs.14,000/- per month. 16. In oppugnation to the said arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the Appellants and the stand taken by this Court to fix the notional income at Rs.20,000/- per month, as per the guidelines and ratio laid down in Sarla Verma’s case and Pranay Sethi’s case, learned Counsel representing the Insurance Company would emphatically state that the ratio laid down in the said Judgments will not apply to the present case. 17. In Pranay Sethi’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. Following the said principle, this Court deems it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium to the Claimants-Appellants. 18. It is needless to state that when an Appeal is filed against an order challenging the compensation as not Just, it constitutes a continuous cause of 10 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1154 & 2136 of 2017 action. Hence, the Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court can be made applicable to the present case. Accordingly, the Order and Decree of the Tribunal stand modified to the extent indicated below. Description Calculation Amount (Rs.) Income per month Rs.14,000/- Income per annum Rs.14,000/- x 12 Rs.1,68,000/- Compensation on applying Multiplier Rs.1,68,000/- x 18 Rs.30,24,000/- Consortium to the claimants Rs.40,000 x 3 Rs.1,20,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Total compensation payable Rs.31,74,000/- 19. At this point of time, learned Counsel for the Appellants has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph 16 of the Judgment in Kinnera Sridevi and two Others vs. Gunnam Veera Venkata Satyanarayana and Another6, wherein the future interest @ 7.5% per annum granted by the Tribunal was enhanced to 9% per annum considering the Judgment of the Apex Court in Rahul Sharma and Another vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others7. As the Division Bench of this Court has modified the rate of interest from 7.5% to 9% in one of the connected matters, this Court has no other option except to follow the same and enhance the rate of interest from 7.5% to 9% per annum. 20. In fine, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1154 of 2017 is allowed, enhancing the compensation granted to the Claimants from Rs.9,45,000/- to Rs.31,74,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum. The 6 M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1480 and 2114 of 2017 7 (2021) 6 SCC 188 11 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1154 & 2136 of 2017 respondents 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the aforesaid enhanced amount of compensation before the Tribunal, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment, after deducting the amount, if any, deposited earlier. On such deposit, the Claimants are entitled to withdraw the same as per their apportioned shares before the Tribunal. The Claimants shall pay the deficit Court fee on the compensation amount awarded over and above the amount claimed in the Claim Petition. It is made clear that the interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount shall be paid from the date of this order till the date of realization. 21. In view of allowing the Appeal filed by the Claimants, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2136 of 2017 filed by the Insurance Company shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 22. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. 23. Office to enclose a copy of the Common Judgment, dated 02.12.2024, in M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1480 and 2114 of 2017, to this order. _______________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J 16th February,2026. Tsy/BMS.