APHC010388992022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 282/2022 Between: 1. MARMAVULA LATHA,, W/O. LATE DEVASENA SARMA, HINDU, NOW AGED 48 YEARS, 2. MARMAVULA VISHNU AKSHITH,, S/O. LATE DEVASENA SARMA, HINDU, NOW AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS 3. MARMAVULA NAGA PRAHITHA,, D/O. LATE DEVASENA SARMA, HINDU, NOW AGED 21 YEARS, PETITIONER NO.3 DECLARED AS MAJOR VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 07/11/2022 IN IA.NO.2/2022 AND PETITIONER NO.1 MOTHER IS DISCHARGED AS HER GUARDIAN. 4. MARMAVULA VENKATA SUBBAMMA, W/O. LATE RAMA MURTHY, HINDU, NOW AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, 5. MARMAVULA SIVA PRASAD,, S/0. LATE RAMA MURTHY, HINDU NOW AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, (PHYSICALLY CHALLENGED PERSON WHO IS THE BROTHER OF THE DECEASED) ALL ARE RESIDING AT SEETHA STREET, CHENNUR VILLAGE, GUDUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. A NAGA RAJU, S/O. RAMACHANDRAIAH, HINDU, DRIVER OF BOLERO MAX TRUCK BEARING REGN. NO. AP-26-Y-6569 RESIDING AT SURAPURAJUPALLI VILLAGE, RAILWAY KODUR MANDAL, SRI YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. (THE I RESPONDENT HEREIN IS NOT NECESSARY PARTY AS NO CLAIM IS MADE 2 VS,J MACMA No.282 of 2022 AGAINST HIM IN THE APPEAL) 2. NAGIRIPATI LAKSHMI DEVI, W/O. CHENGAIAH,HINDU, (OWNER OF BOLERO MAX TRUCK BEARING NO. AP-26-Y-6569) RESIDING AT 5-5-390, SANJAYA GANDHI NAGAR, TIRUPATHI, CHITTURU DISTRICT 3. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, E/8, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPURA, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN STATE ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased topleased to set aside the judgment and decree passed in MVOP 17 of 2016 on the file of the chairman, motor accidents claims tribunal cum VII Addl. District Judge at gudur, SPSR Nellore dated 29-04-2022 and enhance the compensation to Rs. 27,00,000/- as claimed in the appeal or more together with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing the original petition till the date of realization besides costs and pass. 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 pleased to condone the delay of 4 days in filing this MACMA against the judgment and award in MVOP No. 17/2017 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Addl. District Judge, at Gudur, SPSR Nellore District dated 29-4-2022 and to pass IA NO: 2 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 pleased to declare her as major by discharging her mother who is the 1st petitioner herein from the guardianship on her behalf, so as to enable her to proceed with the matter independently and to pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. SIVA PRASAD KATAKAMSETTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 3 VS,J MACMA No.282 of 2022 1. GUDI SRINIVASU 2. The Court made the following: 4 VS,J MACMA No.282 of 2022 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the appellants/claimants, seeking enhancement and challenging the order and decree dated 29.04.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.17 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District, wherein the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.16,71,000/- (Rupees Sixteen lakhs Seventy one thousand only) as against the claim of Rs.27,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased, Marmavula Devasena Sarma, in a motor accident that occurred on 14.09.2015. 02. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 03. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: a) On 14.09.2015 at about 6:00 a.m., the deceased, M. Devasena Sarma, went to Nelcast Limited, Gudur, to attend his duties. After completion of his work, while returning home on his TVS Sports Motorcycle bearing No.AP-26-B-5563, at about 6:45 p.m., when he reached Rapur–Gudur Road near Citracy Factory, a Bolero Max Truck bearing No.AP-26-Y-6569, driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous head injuries and died on the spot. A case in Crime 5 VS,J MACMA No.282 of 2022 No.165 of 2015 under Section 304-A IPC was registered against the driver of the said vehicle. b) It is the case of the petitioners that the 1st respondent was the driver, the 2nd respondent the owner, and the 3rd respondent the insurer of the offending vehicle. The accident occurred during the course of employment of the 1st respondent under the 2nd respondent, and the 3rd respondent is liable to indemnify the insured. Hence, respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.27,00,000/-. 04. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte. 05. The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company filed a counter denying the manner of accident, income, and age of the deceased, and contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself. It was also contended that the driver did not possess a valid driving licence and that the insurer is not liable. 06. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Driver of the Bolero Max Truck bearing No.AP-26-Y6569 and it resulted into the death of the deceased? 2. Whether the driver of the Bolero Max Truck bearing No.AP-26-Y- 6569 did not possess valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident? 3. Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and amount? 4. To what relief?” 6 VS,J MACMA No.282 of 2022 07. On behalf of the petitioners, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the 3rdrespondent/insurance company, no witness was examined, but Ex.B1 was marked. Ex.X1 was also marked through a third party witness. 08. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition is as follows: “In the result, the petition is partly allowed by awarding just compensation Rs.16,71,000/- (Rupees sixteen lakhs seventy one thousands only) payable by the respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally to the claimants 1 to 5 with proportionate costs and interest thereon at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. The 3rd respondent is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount within two months. On such deposit, the said amount is apportioned among the claimants 1 to 5 as follows. (I) The claimant No.1/widow of the deceased entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs.9,71,000/- (ii) claimants 2 and 3 are entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each with proportionate costs and interest as their share in the compensation. The claimant No.1 is directed to spend the shares of the children claimants 2 and 3, for their welfare. (iii) claimants 4 and 5 are entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- each with proportionate costs and interest as their share in compensation. The claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective shares of compensation. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousands only). 09. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is filed on the grounds that the tribunal grossly erred in deducting 30% of the income of the deceased 7 VS,J MACMA No.282 of 2022 towards income tax, though his annual income of Rs.2,02,800/- did not fall within the purview of the Income Tax Act. It is further contended that the Tribunal failed to award consortium to appellant Nos.4 and 5, who are the mother and physically handicapped brother of the deceased, to the extent of Rs.40,000/- each. It is also contended that, as there are five claimants, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses; however, instead, it erroneously deducted 1/3rd. 10. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent/insurance company has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 11. Heard Katakamsetty Siva Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.Gudi Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3. 12. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable, or requires enhancement in this appeal; if so, to what extent?” POINT: 13. There is no dispute with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The present appeal is filed solely challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 8 VS,J MACMA No.282 of 2022 14. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is with regard to the deduction of 30% towards income tax. The evidence of P.W.3 coupled with Ex.X1/salary certificate establishes that the deceased was earning Rs.16,900/- per month, i.e., Rs.2,02,800/- per annum, which does not fall within the taxable range. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vimal Kanwar & Ors. v. Kishore Dan & Ors., in Civil Appeal No.5513 of 2012 (arising out of SLP (C) No.6367 of 2012), dated 03.05.2013. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, when the income is below the taxable limit, no deduction towards income tax is permissible. Therefore, the deduction of 30% made by the Tribunal is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. 15. Having considered the issue of deduction towards income tax, this Court now comes to the question of quantum of compensation. Basing on the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3, coupled with Ex.X1, the income of the deceased as on the date of the accident was taken by the Tribunal at Rs.2,02,800/- per annum (Rs.16,900 × 12). Further, following the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi1, the Tribunal added 25% to the annual income of the deceased towards future prospects and thereby calculated the total annual income at Rs.2,53,500/- per annum. Though there are five dependents in the present case, the Tribunal, instead of deducing 1/4th of the income towards personal 1 2017 ACJ 2700 9 VS,J MACMA No.282 of 2022 and living expenses of the deceased, has deducted 1/3rd. In view of the above, following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2, this Court deems it appropriate to deduct 1/4th towards personal expenses and after such deduction, the annual contribution to the family is calculated at Rs.1,90,125/- per annum. Applying the relevant multiplier ‘13’ applicable to the age of the deceased, i.e., 46 years, as per the decision in Sarla Verma’s case (referred supra), the loss of dependency is arrived at Rs.24,71,625/- (Rs.1,90,125 × 13). 16. With regard to consortium, the Tribunal awarded consortium only to petitioners No.1 to 3. However, the Tribunal failed to award any amount towards loss of consortium to petitioner Nos.4 and 5, who are the mother and physically handicapped brother of the deceased, though they are also entitled for the same, in view of the settled legal position. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.40,000/- each to petitioner Nos.4 and 5 towards loss of consortium i.e., (Rs.40,000/- X 2 = Rs.80,000/-) 17. Further, in addition to the above, in terms of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (referred supra), the Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, which are found to be just and proper and, therefore, require no interference by this Court. 22009 ACJ 1298 10 VS,J MACMA No.282 of 2022 18. Thus, to sum up, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal and the amounts granted in the present appeal, in the light of the computations made above, are as follows: Head Amount granted by the Tribunal Amount now awarded by this Court Loss of dependency Rs.22,36,000/- Rs. 24,71,625/- Loss of consortium to all the petitioners Rs.1,20,000/- Rs.2,00,000/- Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Less income tax at 30% (-) Rs.7,15,800 -- Total Rs.16,71,000/- Rs.27,01,625/- 19. In the present case, since the claimant has claimed only a sum of Rs.27,00,000/-, this Court feels it appropriate to confine the award of compensation to Rs.27,00,000/-. 20. Accordingly, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.16,71,000/- to Rs.27,00,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date: 03.03.2026 KGR