Bench Sr.No:-52 v. Gaganapalli Vekata Ramanaiah Kadapa Dist

Judgment

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) Insurer preferred present appeal under Section 173 of M.V.Act, assailing judgment and award dated 05.12.2016 in M.V.O.P. No.732 of 2014, passed by learned IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa. The Tribunal, by impugned judgment, awarded compensation of ₹27,45,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. 2 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.1057 of 2017

2. The claimants also preferred cross-objections vide XOBJ No.16 of 2026, seeking enhancement of compensation and sought for dismissal of appeal preferred by insurer.

For convenience sake, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

4. (a) The deceased was aged 22 years and pursuing 3rd year MBA Course at Narayana Engineering College, Nellore. Deceased, along with his friends, intended to go to Kovvuru beach and thus, all of them proceeded on different bikes. The deceased was proceeding on motorcycle bearing Registration No.AP 27AQ 7696 as pillion rider. En route, the bike was hit by car bearing Registration No.AP 26AE 6369 and the said offending car ran over several other motorcycles, causing injuries. The rider of motorcycle and as well as the deceased sustained injuries. The rider died on spot and whereas deceased, after being shifted to Simhapuri Hospital at Nellore, succumbed due to injuries. (b) Parents of deceased preferred the claim seeking compensation of ₹30,00,000/-. The 1st respondent - driver and owner of the offending car remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent- insurer filed written statement denying the liability and inter alia disputed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent 3 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.1057 of 2017 driving of 1st respondent. It was pleaded that the rider of motorcycle was coming at high speed and in middle of the road, without noticing the car coming in opposite direction, dashed into the car, thus, he alone was responsible for occurrence of the accident. The insurer also denied the age, educational qualification and earnings of the deceased. (c) Upon considering the submissions made by both parties, the Tribunal framed following issues: 1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Ford Figo – 1.4 LX-1 car bearing No.AP 26AE 6369 resulting in the death of the deceased by name Ganganapalli Vijaya Kumar on 03.08.2014? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3) To what relief? (d) To prove the case, claimants examined PW1 to PW4 and marked Exs.A1 to A8 and Exs.X1 and X2. On behalf of insurer, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. (e) The Tribunal, after appreciating both oral as well as documentary evidence, answered 1st issue in favour of claimant, holding that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle. The Tribunal also held that 4 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.1057 of 2017 the insurer failed to prove that accident occurred due to negligence of the rider of motorcycle. Further, the Tribunal proceeded to determine the income of deceased. (f) In the claim petition, claimants claimed income of deceased as ₹30,000/- per month, as deceased was in 3rd year of MBA course. The Tribunal, however, assessed income of deceased at ₹12,000/- per month by holding that the deceased has not completed MBA course and not even attended some semesters. Future prospects were awarded at the rate of 50%. Half of the income was deducted towards personal expenses. Age of deceased was considered as 22 years and accordingly, applied multiplier of 18. Thus, Tribunal assessed loss of dependency as ₹26,00,000/-. It also awarded ₹1,00,000/- towards love and affection, ₹30,000/- towards medical expenses and ₹15,000/- towards transport charges, thus, in total awarded ₹27,45,000/- payable along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. (g) Assailing the same, insurer preferred present appeal. The claimants also preferred cross objections seeking enhancement of compensation as well. 5 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.1057 of 2017

5. Heard Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for insurer and Sri J.Janakirami Reddy, learned counsel appearing for claimants.

6. (a) Learned counsel for appellant fairly submitted that liability is not in dispute in the present appeal, however, it is contended that the Tribunal has erred in considering income of deceased as ₹12,000/- per month, when admittedly the deceased did not even complete MBA course, which is unjustified. Further, it is also contended that even as per the evidence of P.W.1 as well as Ex.B1, the claimants could demonstrate the salary offered to the deceased was only ₹10,000/- per month, therefore, Tribunal could not have assessed the income as ₹12,000/- per month. (b) It is also contended that Tribunal has granted future prospects at the rate of 50%, rather than 40%, since deceased was claiming private employment. Further, the amounts granted under different components towards conventional heads and as well as granting of interest at the rate of 9% are on higher side.

7. (a) Per contra, learned counsel appearing for claimants contended that as against the claim of ₹30,000/- towards monthly earnings, the Tribunal awarded a meagre amount of ₹12,000/-, which is completely unjustified. Since the deceased was 6 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.1057 of 2017 meritorious student and completed 3 semesters in first class with average percentage of 68% marks, left with 4th semester due, which could not be completed on account of the accident occurred on 04.08.2014, the Tribunal was not justified in construing the income as ₹12,000/-. (b) Further, it is also contended that the Tribunal, though relied on judgment of High Court of Delhi in case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Hazra Begum and others1, wherein for deceased student pursuing final year MBA, the income was assessed at ₹25,000/- per month, for no reason, in the present case, assessed income of ₹12,000/- per month and scaling down of income without any basis is thus erroneous. (c) The learned counsel also further tried to sustain awarding future prospects at the rate of 50% and interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Therefore, by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in S.Vasanthi another v. M/s.Adhiparasakthi Engg. College and another2, learned counsel for claimants would urge to determine the income of deceased as ₹30,000/- per month. Thus, he pleaded for dismissal of the appeal. 1 2015 ACJ 684 2 2022 (6) ALT 14 (SC) 7 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.1057 of 2017

8. We have gone through the record and considered submissions made by learned counsel.

9. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, following question arises for our consideration: i) Whether the Tribunal committed any error in assessing the income of the deceased at ₹12,000/- per month and so, what the just, fair and reasonable compensation? ii) To what relief?

10. The accident occurred on 03.08.2014. The occurrence of accident and liability of insurer are not in dispute. The deceased was pursuing MBA course after completion of graduation. As per evidence of P.W.3 - Principal of Narayana Engineering College, the deceased joined MBA course during the academic year 2011- 2012 and he passed away on account of accident while he was in final semester. Deceased completed first, second and third semesters by securing average percentage of 68% marks. P.W.3 also stated that but for the accident and death, deceased would have completed the course in first class. Of course, in the cross-examination there were some admissions regarding performance of deceased in midterm and internal examinations, 8 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.1057 of 2017 which are not so satisfactory. But the fact remains that deceased after completion of graduation was pursuing MBA course and he was merely to pass final semester for securing the degree.

11. As against the said evidence, the Tribunal assessed the income of deceased as ₹12,000/- per month, on notional basis. For coming to such conclusion, the Tribunal examined Ex.B1 - job offer letter issued in favour of deceased for a salary of ₹10,000/- per month and so also evidence of P.W.1, who admitted to the issuance of job offer letter. The Tribunal therefore opined that except for Ex.B1, nothing has been produced to show that deceased was offered salary of ₹30,000/- per annum. The Tribunal also recorded finding that P.W.3 admitted that deceased did not pass MBA and did not attend even MBA 4th semester examination.

12. We have gone through the evidence of P.W.3 and as well as other documentary evidence on record. P.W.3 has categorically stated that deceased cleared first, second and third semesters in first class by securing average of 68% marks and could not attend final semester due to death. There is nothing in his evidence suggesting otherwise. It is obvious that, but for the accident, deceased would have completed MBA course by attending and 9 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.1057 of 2017 clearing 4th semester; the same therefore cannot be held against claimants to draw a conclusion that deceased failed to secure MBA degree. As rightly contended by learned counsel for claimants, the Tribunal though referred to judgment of Delhi High Court as mentioned supra, wherein a second year student was assessed income of ₹25,000/- per month, no reason was assigned as to why the Tribunal has downscaled the income of the deceased in the present case.

13. In S.Vasanthi’s case2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered case of second year MBA student, who died on account of accident that occurred on 22.05.2010. In that case, Tribunal assessed income of deceased at the rate of ₹7,000/- per month, on notional basis. The High Court enhanced the income of deceased to ₹10,000/- per month. The claimants therein sought for determination of monthly salary of at least ₹40,000/- per month. The deceased in the said case was a qualified engineering graduate and pursuing MBA degree to further his professional capabilities. Further, the claimants also stated in the affidavit that two of the classmates of deceased were gainfully employed and were drawing monthly income of ₹39,869/- and ₹44,588/- respectively. In the said background, the Hon’ble Apex Court 10 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.1057 of 2017 redetermined the income of deceased as ₹30,000/- per month. It was also held that as deceased was only child, the parents would have to suffer, therefore, it was found appropriate to determine the income accordingly. Facts of present case, if not exact, are more or less similar.

14. In the present case, the accident occurred on 03.08.2014 and deceased passed away on 04.08.2014. The deceased graduated in Bachelor of Commerce and was further pursuing MBA to enhance professional capabilities. The deceased cleared first, second and third semesters in first class by securing an average of 68% marks. He was an only child. Therefore, considering all these aspects, we are of the view that monthly income as assessed by the Tribunal is inadequate and therefore, we hereby enhance the same to ₹30,000/- per month.

15. The Tribunal has awarded future prospects at the rate of 50%, which we revise to 40%. 50% of the income is being directed towards personal and living expenses and considering the age of deceased as 22, we adopt multiplier of 18. Further, the amounts granted towards conventional heads are also revised keeping in view the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Pranay Sethi4. Further, the interest awarded at the rate of 9% is also revised to 11 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.1057 of 2017

7.5%. As the cross objections have been preferred with substantial delay of 3319 days, while condoning the delay, we have already made clear that the claimants shall not be entitled to any interest for aforesaid period, therefore, the interest has to be accordingly calculated.

16. Therefore, the compensation stands revised as under: Compensation Heads Monthly Income Yearly Income Future Prospects (Age being 22 years) Deduction (1/2) Multiplier (18) Loss of Income of the deceased Loss of Estate Loss of Funeral Expenses Amount Awarded In accordance with ₹30,000/- ₹3,60,000/- 40% of ₹3,60,000/- = ₹1, 44,000/- ₹5,04,000/- - ₹2,52,000/- = ₹2,52,000/- ₹2,52,000/- x 18 = ₹45,36,000/- National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 Paras 37, 39, 41, 42 and 59.4 ₹45,36,000/- ₹18,150/- (with 10% increase every 3 years from 2017) ₹18,150/- (with 10% increase every 3 years from 2017) Loss of Consortium ₹48,400/- x 2 = ₹96,800/- (with 10% increase every 3 years from 2017) National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 Paras 37, 39, 41, 42 and 59.4 United Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur (2021) 11 SCC 780 Para 37.12 Rajwati alias Rajjo and Ors v. United India Insurance Company 12 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.1057 of 2017 Ltd. And Ors. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1699 Para 34 Sadhana Tomar & Ors. Ashok Khushwaha & Ors. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 554 Para 17 Total ₹46,69,100/-

17. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. No.1057 of 2017 preferred by insurer stands dismissed and cross objections preferred by claimants are allowed in the following terms: i) The claimants are granted revised compensation of ₹46,69,100/- as just and fair, with interest @ 7.5% per annum thereon from the date of claim petition till realization (excluding the period of delay condoned in I.A. No.1 of 2026 in Cross Objections No.16 of 2026). ii) The entire revised compensation amount shall be distributed equally among the claimants. iii) The Insurer is directed to deposit the amount as aforesaid with interest and costs, adjusting the amount already deposited/paid, if any, before the Tribunal within one month. 13 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.1057 of 2017 iv) On such deposit being made, the claimants are entitled to withdraw their respective shares as per the apportionment made above. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this case, if any, shall stand closed. LISA GILL, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J SS