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
11and 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 the4
(2021) 11 SCC 780
13tribunals 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
1421.2. 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
