Bench Sr.No:-24 v. T Lakshmi Preethi Machilipatnam & Ors.

JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) Both appeal of Insurer as well as cross-objections preferred by the claimants assailing the judgment and award dated

12.08.2015 in M.V.O.P. No.45 of 2012 passed by learned VI Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, are heard together and disposed by present common order. 2 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.370 of 2017

2. MACMA No.26 of 2017 is preferred by insurer and whereas, I.A. No.2 of 2017 (X-OBJ No.6720/2017) is preferred by claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.

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

4. (a) While the deceased was proceeding on motorbike along with the pillion rider, the bike was hit by car bearing Registration No.AP 25R 6225 driven by its driver. The accident occurred on National Highway near Toopran in Medak District. Both deceased as well as pillion rider fell down and sustained injuries. Deceased was shifted to Yasoda Hospital, Secunderabad and on following day i.e., 21.05.2011, he succumbed to injuries. The incident was reported to police and Crime No.120 of 2011 was registered against driver – cum – owner of the car for offences under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC. (b) The deceased was graduate and working as Senior Crime Reporter in Surya Daily newspaper and was earning ₹14,000/- per month. He was aged 40 years on the date of incident. Therefore, wife, two minor children preferred the claim. Parents of deceased were arrayed as respondents, who were also affected on account of losing their son. Compensation for ₹35,00,000/- was claimed 3 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.370 of 2017 along with interest. 1st respondent in his written statement denied that he was negligent and responsible for causing the accident, besides disputing the avocation, age and earnings of deceased. The 2nd respondent insurer also filed written statement inter alia pleading that the driver-cum-owner of offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving licence, therefore, the same constituted violation of conditions of policy and thus, not liable. Even the quantum of compensation claimed also was disputed. The 3rd and 4th respondents, parents of deceased supported the claim. (c) The Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence, ultimately found that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the owner-cum-driver of offending vehicle. The Tribunal also framed an issue with regard to its jurisdiction in entertaining the petition and the said issue was answered in affirmative as the claimants were permanent residents of Machilipatnam, falling within its territorial jurisdiction. Tribunal assessed income of deceased as of ₹14,000/- per month, 1/4th of the same was deducted towards personal expenses. Future prospects were awarded at the rate of 30% and considering the age of deceased as 40 years, applied multiplier of 15 and accordingly, assessed loss 4 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.370 of 2017 of earnings. Tribunal also awarded ₹20,000/- towards pain and suffering, ₹1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and ₹26,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses, thus, in total, awarded ₹26,00,000/- payable along with interest at the rate of

7.5% from the date of petition till realisation. The amount was apportioned amongst the claimants and as well as respondents 3 and 4, parents of the deceased in the manner as provided in the impugned award. (d) Aggrieved by the same, insurer preferred present appeal. Even claimants also preferred cross objections, dissatisfied with the compensation determined.

5. Heard Sri D.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel appearing for insurer and Sri Sravan Kumar Mannava, learned counsel appearing for claimants 1 to 3 and respondents 4 and 5.

6. Learned counsel for insurer fairly submitted that the liability is not in issue in the present appeal. The only issue urged is regarding awarding future prospects at the rate of 30% rather than 25% considering the age and avocation of deceased following the principle laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others1. He, 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 5 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.370 of 2017 thus, urged the Court to revise the amount of compensation determined by taking into consideration the parameters specified in the aforesaid judgment.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants, though did not dispute the ratio laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case1, however, submitted that various components of conventional heads since are not in accordance with the aforesaid judgment, the same requires to be revised accordingly.

8. Having considered aforesaid submissions, we hereby modify the impugned award in following terms by awarding just, fair and reasonable compensation. Compensation Heads Monthly Income Yearly Income Future Prospects (Age being 40 years) Deduction (1/4) Multiplier (15) Loss of Income of the deceased Loss of Estate Amount Awarded In accordance with ₹14,000/- ₹1,68,000/- 25% of ₹1,68,000/- = ₹42,000/- ₹2,10,000/- - ₹52,500/- = ₹1,57,500/- ₹1,57,500/- x 15 = ₹23,62,500/- National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 Paras 37, 39, 41, 42 and 59.4 ₹23,62,500/- ₹18,150/- (with 10% increase every 3 years from 2017) National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 6 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.370 of 2017 Loss of Funeral Expenses ₹18,150/- (with 10% increase every 3 years from 2017) Paras 37, 39, 41, 42 and 59.4 Loss of Consortium ₹48,400/- x 6 = ₹2,90,400/- (with 10% increase every 3 years from 2017) United Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur (2021) 11 SCC 780 Para 37.12 Rajwati alias Rajjo and Ors v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. And Ors. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1699 Para 34 Sadhana Tomar & Ors. Ashok Khushwaha & Ors. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 554 Para 17 Total ₹26,89,200/-

9. In the result, the appeal preferred by Insurer in M.A.C.M.A. No.370 of 2017 and cross-objections filed by claimants vide I.A.No.2 of 2017 (X-OBJ No.6720/2017) are disposed of in the following terms: i) The claimants are granted revised compensation of ₹26,89,200/- as just and fair, with interest @ 7.5% per annum thereon from the date of claim petition till realization; ii) Out of the revised compensation amount, wife of the deceased is entitled for ₹10,89,200/-, son and daughter of the deceased are 7 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.370 of 2017 entitled for ₹5,00,000/- each and parents of the deceased are entitled for ₹3,00,000/-. 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. 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