Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 718 (AP)

Pinnamaneni Siva Rani v. Harendra Yadavan

2025-06-16

B.KRISHNA MOHAN, Y.LAKSHMANA RAO

body2025
Judgment : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Krishna Mohan) Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent-Insurance Company. 2. This appeal was filed against the order in M.O.P.No.580/2006 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, dated 12.08.2014. The appellants are the claimants before the Tribunal and the 3 rd respondent is the Insurance Company and the 3 rd respondent before the Tribunal which contested the matter. The appellants are seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground of income of the deceased and inclusion of the 4 th appellant as the dependent mother of the deceased son. Accordingly, they sought for enhancement of compensation. The Tribunal upon consideration of the matter on merits awarded compensation of Rs.14,15,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Rs.3,00,000/- each was awarded to the petitioner Nos.2 & 3 therein and Rs.8,15,000/- was granted to the petitioner No.1 therein. So far as the deposit of the said amount is concerned, other directions were issued in the said order dated 12.08.2014. Whereas the petitioners/ claimants claim a total compensation of Rs.75,00,000/- on account of the death of Mr. Pinnamaneni Venkata Subbarao Chowdary in view of the motor vehicle accident occurred on 17.06.2002 at 05:00 hours. 3. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the Tribunal took into account, the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month on the ground that the petitioners therein failed to produce any document to show that he was drawing Rs.14,000/- per month as salary. The learned counsel for the appellants also submits that the deceased was a partner in a granite business run by the partnership firm and income arose out of the said firm was not considered to determine the income of the deceased properly. But the Tribunal went into the aspect and found that the said firm was not in operation, as it was closed long back. The statement of account of the said firm between 1999 to 2003 shows lot of decline and drop in the balance of the income. Hence, the Tribunal took into consideration, the income of the deceased out of his employment alone. Thus, 1/3 rd of the income was deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and Rs.80,000/- was awarded with multiplier of 16 towards loss of dependency which comes to Rs.12,80,000/-. Hence, the Tribunal took into consideration, the income of the deceased out of his employment alone. Thus, 1/3 rd of the income was deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and Rs.80,000/- was awarded with multiplier of 16 towards loss of dependency which comes to Rs.12,80,000/-. For the loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded. Towards funeral expenses Rs.25,000/- was awarded. For transportation charges Rs.10,000/- was granted. 4. The second contention of the appellants is that, the 4 th appellant who is the mother of the deceased was not considered as dependent of the deceased as she said to have worked as some teacher and retired. Whether she is a pensioner or not was also not established and it is not borne out of record that she worked as any Government Teacher. 5. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have considered the 4 th petitioner therein/ 4 th appellant herein as one of the dependents of the deceased and accordingly ought to have calculated the loss of dependency. In the considered view of this court, the 4 th petitioner therein/ 4 th appellant herein/ the mother of the deceased ought to have been taken into consideration as one of the dependents of the deceased. If so, the 1/4 th of the income of the deceased shall be deducted towards his personal expenses. So far as the future prospects of the deceased is concerned, the Tribunal did not go into that aspect. Admittedly, the deceased was working as Project Manager and he was drawing Rs.10,000/- salary at the time of accident. Towards future prospects another 40% of the income is added as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi , [2017 (6) ALT 60 (SC)] . Since the children were awarded compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- each, the mother of the deceased is also awarded Rs.5,00,000/- towards loss of dependency. Accordingly, the award of compensation is to be calculated afresh as under: Loss of Dependency: Heads Calculation Monthly salary of the deceased Rs.10,000/- Future prospects 40% to the salary of deceased (Rs.10,000/- + Rs.4,000/-) Rs.14,000/- 1/4th income deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased (Rs.14,000/- - Rs.3,500/-) Rs.10,500/- Annual income of the deceased (Rs.10,500/- x 12 months) Rs.1,26,000/- Multiplier of 16 to the age of deceased (Rs.1,26,000/- x 16) Rs.20,16,000/- Total loss of dependency Rs.20,16,000/- 6. So far as the petitioner No.4 is concerned, Rs.5,00,000/- is granted. The other heads of compensation is not changed. Accordingly, calculation shall be made in total and it shall be paid to the appellants within a period of one (1) month from the date of receipt of this order. The other portion of the order of the Tribunal is not disturbed. If all the appellants are majors, they are entitled to withdraw their shares of the deposited amount without furnishing any security as per this order. 7. Accordingly this M.A.C.M.A. is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.