Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : 22.06.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010151802006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE 22nd DAY OF JUNE 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1465/2006 Between: 1. JAGANA LAKSHMI, W/O LATE JAGANA SRINU @ SRINUNAIDU R/O SALUR, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT 2. JAGANA LATHA, D/O LATE JAGANA SRINU @ SRINUNAIDU R/O SALUR, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT BEING REP. BY THEIR MOTHER 1 PETITIONER HEREIN AS GUARDIAN 3. JAGANA SAILATH A, D/O LATE JAGANA SRINU @ SRINUNAIDU R/O SALUR, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT BEING REP. BY THEIR MOTHER 1 PETITIONER HEREIN AS GUARDIAN 4. JAGANA SRIDEVI, D/O LATE JAGANA SRINU @ SRINUNAIDU R/O SALUR, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT BEING REP. BY THEIR MOTHER 1 PETITIONER HEREIN AS GUARDIAN 5. J. PARAMMA (DIED), W/O PEDA SATYANARAYANA, HINDU NIL R/O PEDAPALEM PULLETIKURRU MANDAL, E.G.DIST. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. G VENKATA RAJU ANOTHER, S/O VARADARAJU PLOT NO.120, B.BLOCK, AUTONAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM-530 2 012 2. NATIONAL INS CO LTD, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER VISAKHAPATNAM ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Court Counsel for the Appellant(S): SHANTHI NEELAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): T S RAYALU The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: 1. The present appeal arises out of the award dated 24.11.20051 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge at Vizianagaram2, in M.V.O.P.No.983 of 20013. 2. The appellants, who are wife, daughters and mother of one Jagana Srinu @ Srinu Naidu4, are the claimants before the Tribunal. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under the impugned award, they preferred the present appeal 1hereinafter called as „Impugned award‟ 2 hereinafter called as „the Tribunal‟ 3 hereinafter called as „Claim petition‟ 4hereinafter called as „deceased‟ 3 seeking enhancement thereof.The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the owner and insurer of the Lorry bearing No.AP 31 T 92335 respectively. 3. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: a. On 20.01.2001 at about 06.30 p.m., while the deceased being driver of the lorry proceeding from Visakhapatnam to Keshkal of Madhya Pradesh, when he reached near Keshkal Ghat Road first curve, the brakes of the said lorry failed, resulted the deceased lost control over the same and dashed another stationed vehicle, received grievous injuries. On 21.01.2001, while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injuries. The appellants being legal representatives of the deceased claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- against the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Hence, the claim petition under Section 163-A of M.V.Act. 4. The respondent No.2/insurer filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded thatthe compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive; that they 5 hereinafter referred as „lorry‟ 4 have to approach the appropriate authority under the Workmen‟s Compensation Act, thereby, prayed to dismiss the claim petition against this respondent. 5. During enquiry before the Tribunal,on behalf of the claimants, the claimant No.1 herself was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.7 wereexhibited. On behalf of the respondent No.2, none were examined and no documentary evidence was adduced. 6. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the deceased died on account of the injuries sustained in the accident involving the lorry while it was in use on a road, which is a public place.Accordingly, a sum of ₹3,04,000/- was awarded as compensation to the claimants, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization, payable by Respondent Nos.1 and 2, for the death of the deceased in the accident.Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement thereof. 5 7. Heard Ms.N.Shanthi, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri T.S.Rayulu, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/insurer. 8. The sole contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants is that the Tribunal erred in determining the quantum of compensation by erroneously assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/-, despite the specific case of the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs.4,000/- per month besides Rs.50/- per day towards batta. It is contended that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the evidence available on record regarding the income of the deceased and consequently awarded inadequate compensation. Therefore, the impugned award warrants interference by this Court to the extent of enhancement of the compensation, and the present appeal deserves to be allowed. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/insurer submits that the Tribunal, upon a proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, rightly determined the compensation payable to the claimants. It is 6 contended that, in the absence of any cogent documentary evidence establishing the actual income of the deceased, the Tribunal was justified in assessing his notional monthly income at Rs.2,000/-. Therefore, the impugned award does not warrant any interference by this Court, and the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 10. Now, the point that arises for determination is; “Whether the claimantsare entitled for enhancement of compensation under the head of loss of dependency, if so, to what amount?” 11. It is not in dispute that the deceased died in the motor vehicle accident involving the offending lorry. It is also an admitted fact that neither the owner nor the insurer has preferred any appeal challenging the findings recorded by the Tribunal with regard to the occurrence of the accident, the negligence of the driver of the offending lorry, or the liability fastened upon them. 12. Though it is the specific case of the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs.4,000/- per month besides Rs.50/- per day towards batta while working as a lorry driver, admittedly, except the self-serving testimony of P.W.1, no documentary or 7 other cogent evidence has been placed on record to establish the actual income of the deceased. In the absence of such evidence, the Tribunal notionally assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/-. However, having regard to the nature of the avocation of the deceased as a lorry driver and the prevailing wages at the relevant point of time, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would be just and reasonable to assess his monthly income at Rs.3,000/-,which works out to Rs.36,000/- per annum. After deducting one-third thereof towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, the annual contribution to the family comes to Rs.24,000/- (Rs.36,000/- – Rs.12,000/-). 13. As per the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v.Pranay Sethi6, towards future prospects, in case the deceased was self- employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years….. (emphasis supplied) 62017 (6) ALT 60 (SC) 8 14. In the present case, as per the above said decision, 40% of actual income has to be added to the income of the deceased towards future prospects as the deceased is aged about 33 years by the date of incident, which is not in dispute. After adding 40% to the income of the deceased towards future prospects her income is determined at Rs.33,600/-(Rs.24,000/- + Rs.9,600/-). 15. The multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased, as rightly adopted by the Tribunal, is '17'. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.5,71,200/- (Rs.33,600/- × 17) towards loss of dependency. 16. CONVENTIONAL HEADS:- On the point of the conventional heads, as per the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), this Court can award the enhanced amounts under the conventional heads of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. The claimants are also entitled for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.40,000/- X 5) towards loss of spousal consortium, parental consortium and filial consortium, towards funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- and towards loss of estate Rs.15,000/-,respectively as was awarded in 9 Rojalini Nayak case(referred to supra). In total the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.8,01,200/- against the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 17. A brief exposition of the calculation made to arrive at the compensation is set out infra: Heads Award of the Tribunal Calculation/Enhanced by this Court The annual income of the deceased. Rs.36,000/- per annum 1/3rd to be deducted as personal expenses of deceased. (Rs.36,000/- - Rs.12,000/-) Rs.24,000/- 40% to be added as future prospects (Rs.24,000/- + Rs.9,600/-) Rs.33,600/- Compensation arrived at on application of multiplier „17‟ under the head of loss of dependency. Rs.2,72,000/- (Rs.33,600/- x 17) Rs.5,71,200/- Spousal, parental and filial consortium Rs.15,000/- Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.40,000/- X 5) 10 Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.2,000/- Rs.15,000/- Total compensation awarded Rs.8,01,200/- 18. Therefore, in view of the forgoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal warrants interference by enhancing the compensation from Rs.3,04,000/- to Rs.8,01,200/-. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the appellants/claimants is liable to be allowed. Thus, this point is answered accordingly. 19. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is allowed. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from ₹3,04,000/- to ₹8,01,200/- (Rupees Eight lakhs One thousand Two hundred only), together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization, with costs, payable by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. The Respondent No.2/Insurance Company shall deposit enhanced 11 compensation amount, together with accrued interest and costs, before the Tribunal within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Upon such deposit, the claimant No.1/wife shall be entitled to enhanced compensation amount in addition to the compensation awarded to her by the Tribunal under the same apportionment and she is permitted to withdraw the same with interest accrued thereon. The Tribunal shall proceed to pay the amount in the aforesaid terms, adjusting the amount, if any, already paid. The appellants/claimants are directed to pay the deficit Court Fee before the Tribunal forthwith. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 22.06.2026 Krs 12 223 THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA M.A.C.M.A.No.1465 of 2006 ( JUDGMENT ) DATE: 22.06.2026 Krs