Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Pinisetty Lalithamba & 2 Others vs Delhi Transport Corporation And ... on 16 April, 2026
APHC010011792016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3548]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1936/2016
Between:
1. PINISETTY LALITHAMBA & 2 OTHERS, W/O. LATE PINISETTY
VENKATA NARASAYYA, HINDU, AGED 40 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.1-50,
BESIDE BHARATH SILPANILAYAM, NEAR POLICE OUT POST,
YENDADA, VISAKHAPATNAM (WIFE OF THE DECEASED)
2. PINISETTY SIVA NAGA SANDHYA,, D/O. LATE PINISETTY VENKATA
NARASAYYA, HINDU, AGED 21 YEARS,R/O. R/O. D.NO.1-50,
BESIDE BHARATH SILPANILAYAM, NEAR POLICE OUT POST,
YENDADA, VISAKHAPATNAM (DAUGHTER OF THE DECEASED)
3. PINISETTY RAVI RAJA,, S/O. LATE PINISETTY VENKATA
NARASAYYA, HINDU, AGED 20 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.1-50, BESIDE
BHARATH SILPANILAYAM, NEAR POLICE OUT POST, YENDADA,
VISAKHAPATNAM
...APPELLANT(S)
AND
1. S M MURALI KRISHNA 2 OTHERS, S/O. LAKSHMANA RAO, HINDU,
AGED NOT KNOWN BUT MAJOR, R/O.AT F.NO.2, D.NO.55-6-5/8,
FOURTH FLOOR, SHIA SHANKAR NAGAR, OLD VENKOJIPALEM,
VISAKHAPATNAM DIST., (OWNER OF THE INDICA CAR BEARING
NO. AP 31 TV 0579).
2. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP.
BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER (LEGAL), III FLOOR, PEEJAY PLAZA,
VIP ROAD, C.B.M. COMPOUND, VISAKHAPATNAM-530 003.
3. N P SHANKAR SHANKAR, S/O.N.APPARAO, HINDU, AGED NOT
KNOWN, BUT MAJOR, R/O.D.NO.9-1-13, TIEW RESAVANIPALEM,
VISAKHAPATNAM DIST., (DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE)
...RESPONDENT(S):
2
Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Court against the
Judgment and Decree dated 23-02-2016 in M.V.O.P.No.254/ 2012 on the file
of THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-VI ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM.
IA NO: 1 OF 2016(MACMAMP 2698 OF 2016
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
permit the Petitioner/Appellants to amend the value of the petition from
Rs.15,00,000/- to Rs. 20,00,000/- in MVOP.NO.254 of 2012 on the file of the
MACT-Cum-IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam as against the
respondents No. 1 to 3 and to pass
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. S.N.K.MAHANTHI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. AMANCHARLA SATISH BABU
2.
The Court made the following:
3
JUDGMENT:
Heard, Smt. O.Varalakshmi, learned counsel representing Smt. S.N.K.Mahanthi, learned counsel for the claimants, and Sri Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel representing Sri Amancharla Satish Babu, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent insurance company. None appeared for the respondent Nos.1 and 3, being the owner and the driver, and admittedly they remained ex parte before the Tribunal.
2. The parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The claimants, who are the appellants moved the appeal, challenging the Order and Decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), dated 23.02.2016, in M.V.O.P.No.254 of 2012, on the ground that the Tribunal misplaced in not awarding the future prospects to the claimants and is contrary to the very ratio laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 1, and the Constitutional Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others2. The facts essential are detailed hereunder:
4. The deceased by name Pinisetty Venkata Narasayya, after attending his duties intended to go to his house and, while crossing the road, on NH-5 1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680 4 at police out post, one Tata Indica car bearing registration No.AP 31 TV 0579 coming from Vizianagaram in a rash and negligent manner with a high speed without following traffic rules, dashed the deceased, which resulted in the deceased sustaining severe head injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Seven Hills hospital through 108 Ambulance for first aid and thereafter, on 03.08.2008 he was admitted in Surya Hospital for treatment. Thereafter, on 08.08.2008, he was shifted to KGH, Visakhpatnam for better treatment and on 08.09.2008 at about 9.30 hours he succumbed to death while undergoing treatment. The PM Palem Police registered the case in Cr.No.247 of 2008 under Section 338 of IPC and thereafter, it was altered to Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the accident vehicle.
5. The 1st petitioner, being wife of the deceased, filed the claim petition and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are daughter and son of the deceased. The entire family is dependent on the earning of the deceased and after the death of the husband, 1st petitioner lost the conjugal bliss and enjoyment in her life. Except the deceased, no one is there to look after the welfare of the 1st petitioner and her children. At the time of death, petitioner Nos.2 and 3/claimants were unmarried and unemployed. Towards funeral expenses, they spent Rs.10,000/- and Rs.90,000/- towards medical expenses and also spent Rs.10,000/- towards transportation for shifting the dead body and in total, the claim by the claimants was Rs.15,00,000/-. 5
6. The 1st respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle. The 2nd respondent is the insurer to the car and the 3rd respondent is the driver and the petitioners sought compensation against them jointly and severally.
7. Adverting to the notices, respondent Nos.1 and 3 before the Tribunal remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent, being the insurer contested the Claim Petition by filing the counter. The 2nd respondent‟s version is that the accident occurred on 02.08.2008 and the complaint was lodged belatedly on 05.08.2008 i.e., after 3 days and it is a belated complaint. Further, the 2nd respondent alleges that the claimants are not entitled for any compensation since the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident and was also not qualified and does not satisfy the requirements of Rule No.3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989.
8. While refuting to the contentions in the Claim Petition, the 2nd respondent seeks protection under Section 147 and 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act and that the respondent Nos.1 and 3 did not comply the statutory requirements under Section 134(C) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and Section 158 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, within the stipulated period and ultimately, prays the Tribunal to dismiss the Claim Petition against the 2nd respondent.
9. For better appreciation, Sections 134(C), 147, 149 and 158 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, are extracted hereunder:
"Section 134(C): Give the following information in writing to the insurer, who has issued the certificates of insurance, about the occurrence of the accident, namely:--
(i) insurance policy number and period of its validity;
(ii) date, time and place of accident;6
(iii) particulars of the persons injured or killed in the accident;
(iv) name of the driver and the particulars of his driving licence.
Section 147: Requirements of policies and limits of liability.-- (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which--
(a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer; and
(b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2) --
(i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place;
(ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place:
Explanation.-- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party shall be deemed to have been caused by or to have arisen out of, the use of a vehicle in a public place notwithstanding that the person who is dead or injured or the property which is damaged was not in a public place at the time of the accident, if the act or omission which led to the accident occurred in a public place.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained under any other law for the time being in force, for the purposes of third party insurance related to either death of a person or grievous hurt to a person, the Central Government shall prescribe a base premium and the liability of an insurer in relation to such premium for an insurance policy under sub-section (1) in consultation with the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority. (3) A policy shall be of no effect for the purposes of this Chapter unless and until there is issued by the insurer in favour of the person by whom the policy is effected a certificate of insurance in the prescribed form and containing the prescribed particulars of any condition subject to which the policy is issued and of any other prescribed matters; and different forms, particulars and matters may be prescribed in different cases. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a policy of Insurance issued before the commencement of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 shall be continued on the existing terms under the contract and the provisions of this Act shall apply as if this Act had not been amended by the said Act.
(5) Where a cover note issued by the insurer under the provisions of this Chapter or the rules made thereunder is not followed by a policy of insurance within the prescribed time, the insurer shall, within seven days of the expiry of the period of the validity of the cover note, notify the fact to the registering authority in whose records the vehicle to which the cover note relates has been registered or to such other authority as the State Government may prescribe.
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, an insurer issuing a policy of insurance under this section shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of that person or those classes of persons.
Section 149: Settlement by insurance company and procedure therefor.-- (1) The insurance company shall, upon receiving information of the accident, either from claimant or through accident information report or otherwise, designate an officer to settle the claims relating to such accident. (2) An officer designated by the insurance company for processing the settlement of claim of compensation may make an offer to the claimant for settlement before the Claims Tribunal giving such details, within thirty days 7 and after following such procedure as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
(3) If, the claimant to whom the offer is made under sub-Section (2),--
(a) accepts such offer,--
(i) the Claims Tribunal shall make a record of such settlement, and such claim shall be deemed to be settled by consent; and
(ii) the payment shall be made by the insurance company within a maximum period of thirty days from the date of receipt of such record of settlement;
(b) rejects such offer, a date of hearing shall be fixed by the Claims Tribunal to adjudicate such claim on merits.
Section 158: Production of certain certificates, licence and permit in certain cases.-- (1) Any person driving a motor vehicle in any public place shall, on being so required by a police officer in uniform authorised in this behalf by the State Government, produce--
(a) the certificate of insurance;
(b) the certificate of registration;
(c) the pollution under control certificate;
(d) the driving licence; and
(e) in the case of a transport vehicle, also the certificate of fitness referred to in section 56, and the permit; and
(f) any certificate or authorisation of exemption that has been granted under this Act, relating to the use of the vehicle.
(2) If, where owing to the presence of a motor vehicle in a public place an accident occurs involving death or bodily injury to another person, the driver of the vehicle does not at the time produce the certificates, driving licence and permit referred to in sub-section (1) to a police officer, he shall produce the said certificates, licence and permit at the police station at which he makes the report required by section 134.
(3) No person shall be liable to conviction under sub-section (1) or sub- section (2) by reason only of the failure to produce the certificate of insurance if, within seven days from the date on which its production was required under sub-section (1), or as the case may be, from the date of occurrence of the accident, he produces the certificate at such police station as may have been specified by him to the police officer who required its production or, as the case may be, to the police officer at the site of the accident or to the officer in charge of the police station at which he reported the accident: Provided that except to such extent and with such modifications as may be prescribed, the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply to the driver of a transport vehicle.
(4) The owner of a motor vehicle shall give such information as he may be required by or on behalf of a police officer empowered in this behalf by the State Government to give for the purpose of determining whether the vehicle was or was not being driven in contravention of section 146 and on any occasion when the driver was required under this section to produce his certificate of insurance.
(5) In this section, the expression "produce his certificate of insurance"
means produce for examination the relevant certificate of insurance or such other evidence as may be prescribed that the vehicle was not being driven in contravention of section 146."
10. In the counter, it was noticed by the Tribunal that the respondents have not admitted and denied the age of the deceased and that he was a 8 Mechanical Supervisor, working in APSRTC, Vizianagaram and was earning Rs.13,000/- per month and the petitioners were put to strict proof.
11. While answering the petition, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the deceased viz., Pinisetty Venkata Narasayya, S/o. Late Hanumantha Rao, died in the motor accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle bearing Registration No.AP 31 TV 0579 (TATA Indica Car), driven by its driver?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?
3. To what relief?
12. During the course of the trial, the claimants/appellants got marked Exs.A.1 to A.8 and the 1st petitioner got herself examined as P.W.1. One B.Sanjeeva Rao, R.Gowri Shankar and P.Ambedhkar were examined as P.Ws.2 to 4 and Exs.X1 to X4 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, one J.V.Kiran Kumar was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked on their behalf.
13. While considering the issue No.1, the Tribunal has elaborately discussed the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioners as well as the respondents and concluded the issue No.1 in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
14. While coming to the issue No.2, regarding the entitlement of compensation, the Tribunal considered the evidence and held that the 9 claimants/appellants are dependents on the earnings of the deceased who was working as Mechanical Supervisor at the time of the accident and drawing the salary of Rs.12,360/- per month and was contributing entire salary towards the family members and concluded that the claimants are entitled to the compensation.
15. Adverting to the quantity of compensation to be awarded to the claimants as per Column No.25 of the petition, the Tribunal, taking into consideration of the fact that the petitioners have spent Rs.10,000/- for shifting the dead body, consciously awarded.
16. Regarding the funeral expenses, the Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- though the petitioners claimed for Rs.15,000/-. Regarding the compensation for the loss of consortium, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/-, basing on the ratio laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. So also, regarding compensation for love and affection, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded. The Tribunal denied to grant compensation towards extra nourishment of medicine on the ground that the claimant‟s husband died on 08.09.2008 after the accident and basing on the medical bills, the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.45,000/- and also an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges.
17. Even before this Court, despite the notices, respondent Nos.1 and 3 are not present and this Court is constrained to hold that they are not interested to proceed with the appeal.
10
18. Smt. O.Varalakshmi, learned counsel for the claimants, would vehemently contend that though the Tribunal has awarded more than the amount claimed by the claimants i.e., Rs.15,65,440/- towards the petitioners‟ claim i.e., Rs.15,00,000/-, but the Tribunal has failed to consider in granting future prospects, which is legalistically settled by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and this Court and she strongly relied on the judgment reported in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others3. The relevant portion at para Nos.59 and 60 are extracted hereunder:
"...59. Having bestowed our anxious consideration, we are disposed to think when we accept the principle of standardization, there is really no rationale not to apply the said principle to the self-employed or a person who is on a fixed salary. To follow the doctrine of actual income at the time of death and not to add any amount with regard to future prospects to the income for the purpose of determination of multiplicand would be unjust. The determination of income while computing compensation has to include future prospects so that the method will come within the ambit and sweep of just compensation as postulated under Section 168 of the Act. In case of a deceased who had held a permanent job with inbuilt grant of annual increment, there is an acceptable certainty. But to state that the legal representatives of a deceased who was on a fixed salary would not be entitled to the benefit of future prospects for the purpose of computation of compensation would be inapposite. It is because the criterion of distinction between the two in that event would be certainty on the one hand and staticness on the other. One may perceive that the comparative measure is certainty on the one hand and uncertainty on the other but such a perception is fallacious. It is because the price rise does affect a self-employed person; and that apart there is always an incessant effort to enhance one‟s income for sustenance. The purchasing capacity of a salaried person on permanent job when increases because of grant of increments and pay revision or for some other change in service conditions, there is always a competing attitude in the private sector to enhance the salary to get better efficiency from the employees. Similarly, a person who is self-employed is bound to garner his resources and raise his charges/fees so that he can live with same facilities. To have the perception that he is likely to remain static 3 2017 ACJ 2700 11 and his income to remain stagnant is contrary to the fundamental concept of human attitude which always intends to live with dynamism and move and change with the time. Though it may seem appropriate that there cannot be certainty in addition of future prospects to the existing income unlike in the case of a person having a permanent job, yet the said perception does not really deserve acceptance. We are inclined to think that there can be some degree of difference as regards the percentage that is meant for or applied to in respect of the legal representatives who claim on behalf of the deceased who had a permanent job than a person who is self-employed or on a fixed salary. But not to apply the principle of standardization on the foundation of perceived lack of certainty would tantamount to remaining oblivious to the marrows of ground reality. And, therefore, degree-test is imperative. Unless the degree-test is applied and left to the parties to adduce evidence to establish, it would be unfair and inequitable. The degree-test has to have the inbuilt concept of percentage. Taking into consideration the cumulative factors, namely, passage of time, the changing society, escalation of price, the change in price index, the human attitude to follow a particular pattern of life, etc., an addition of 40% of the established income of the deceased towards future prospects and where the deceased was below 40 years an addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years would be reasonable.
60. The controversy does not end here. The question still remains whether there should be no addition where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Sarla Verma thinks it appropriate not to add any amount and the same has been approved in Reshma Kumari. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that salary does not remain the same. When a person is in a permanent job, there is always an enhancement due to one reason or the other. To lay down as a thumb rule that there will be no addition after 50 years will be an unacceptable concept. We are disposed to think, there should be an addition of 15% if the deceased is between the age of 50 to 60 years and there should be no addition thereafter. Similarly, in case of self- employed or person on fixed salary, the addition should be 10% between the age of 50 to 60 years. The aforesaid yardstick has been fixed so that there can be consistency in the approach by the tribunals and the courts."
19. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents Sri Amancharla Satish Babu, contended that not in all cases, the future prospects to be granted and specifically when the judgments are after the 12 accident and will not have the effect of retrospective and argued to dismiss the appeal.
20. While discussing the entitlement of compensation on different conventional heads entailed in the Constitutional Judgment in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others [(2017) 16 SCC 680], the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur and others 4, reiterated and observed that when the compensation is awarded under the loss of consortium, there is no gainsay in again awarding compensation under the head of love and affection. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in paragraph 35, held as follows:
"35. The Tribunals and High Courts are directed to award compensation for loss of consortium which is a legitimate conventional head. There is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head."
21. Further, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi‟s case (supra 2), in paragraph 52, held as follows:
"52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh. It has granted Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 1,00,000/- loss of consortium and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh refers to Santosh Devi, it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the 4 (2021) 11 SCC 780 13 tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs.
15,000/- respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads."
22. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others5, in paragraphs 19 and 21, held as follows:
"19. The Insurance Company has contended that the High Court had wrongly awarded Rs.1,00,000 towards loss of love and affection, and Rs.25,000 towards funeral expenses. The judgment of this Court in Pranay Sethi has set out the various amounts to be awarded as compensation under the conventional heads in case of death. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced herein below:
"52. .... Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000, Rs.40,000 and Rs.15,000 respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be @ 10% in a span of three years."
As per the aforesaid judgment, the compensation of Rs.25,000 towards funeral expenses is decreased to Rs.15,000. ......."
"21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is Loss of Consortium. In legal parlance, "consortium" is a compendious term which encompasses „spousal consortium‟, „parental consortium‟, and „filial consortium‟. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse. 21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of "company, society, co-operation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation.5
(2018) 18 SCC 130 14 21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of "parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training.
21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit."
23. This Court, after detailed consideration of the judgments reported in Sarla Verma and others. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, wherein the Hon‟ble Supreme Court categorically held that future prospects need to be awarded to the deceased family in case of fixed salary. Admittedly, the appellant‟s husband, who succumbed to death due to the accident was aged about 49 years and falls within the observation of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. In all force, the claimants are entitled for future prospects as laid down by the Constitutional Bench. Taking into consideration Para Nos.59 and 60 of the said judgment, this Court is inclined to award 30% on the same to be added to the actual salary.
24. In view of the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the above-referred judgments, the compensation will be calculated as follows:
Serial Head Compensation
No.
1. Salary per month Rs.12,360/-
2. 30% towards future prospects Rs.3,708/-
3. Salary with future prospects Rs.16,068/- per month
4. Deducting 1/3rd towards Rs.5,356/- (Rs.16,068 x 1/3)
personal expenses
5. Salary after deducting 1/3rd Rs.10,712/- per month
towards personal expenses
6. Salary per annum Rs.1,28,544/-
7. After applying multiplier „13‟ Rs.16,71,072/- (Rs.1,28,544 x 13)
15
8. Funeral expenses Rs.18,150/-
9. Transportation Rs.10,000/-
10. Medicines Rs.45,000/-
11. Loss of consortium @ Rs.1,45,200/-
Rs.48,400 per each dependent
x3
Total Rs.18,89,422/-
25. Accordingly, the Order and Decree, dated 23.02.2016, in M.V.O.P. No.254 of 2012, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, is hereby modified, enhancing the compensation from Rs,15,65,440/- to Rs.18,89,422/-, while the other part of the Order holds good and not interfered. The enhanced compensation shall be apportioned as directed by the Tribunal. The claimants shall pay the deficit Court fee on the enhanced compensation amount, if any. It is made clear that interest is not payable on the enhanced amount.
26. Resultantly, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, modifying the Order and Decree of the Tribunal to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J Dt: 16.04.2026 SR/BMS 16 206 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA M.A.C.M.A.No.1936 of 2016 Date: 16.04.2026 SR/BMS