THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTI CE RENUKA YARA M.A.C.M.A.No.128 OF 2023 JUDGMENT:-

This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company aggrieved by the order, dated 21.06.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.154 of 2016 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

2. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the deceased Kanagandla @ Kanagalla Sravan Kumar, a labourer, employed on a lorry bearing registration No.TS 02 UA 4573 (SML Prestige Tipper) was doing the work of loading and unloading sand. On 18.02.2015 at about 9:30 P.M., the deceased along with his friends Shekar and Kanakaiah loaded the sand in the said lorry and were proceeding towards Siddipet for unloading the sand. On the way, between 22:00 hours to 22:45 hours when the lorry reached outskirts of Siddipet, two lorries dashed each other and the accident occurred. In the said accident, the deceased died. Consequently, the parents of the deceased (claim petitioners)

filed the claim petition. The claim petitioners got examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A10. The appellant/insurance company got examined D.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.B1 to B3. Upon examining the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded Rs.17,50,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred.

4. In grounds of appeal, the appellant/Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal has not considered the legal ratio laid down in National I nsurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 ACJ 2700’s case for adding future prospects and the legal ratio laid down in Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009)6 SCC 121’s case, for reduction of 50% of income towards personal expenses when the deceased is a bachelor.

5. The Tribunal has taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- per month which comes to Rs.90,000/- per annum and the same need not be interfered with. To the said income, there is a need to add 40% towards future prospects.

6. The age of the deceased is 20 years. As per Pranay Sethi’s case (supra 1), if future prospects at 40% is added to the annual income, the net annual income comes to Rs.1,26,000/- (Rs.90,000/- + 36,000/-). If the said amount is multiplied by the appropriate multiplier ‘18’ as per Sarla Varma’s case (2 supra), the total compensation under the head of ‘loss of dependency’ would be Rs.22,68,000/-. The deceased was a bachelor. Therefore, 50% has to be deducted towards personal expenses which comes to Rs.11,34,000/-.

7. In addition, the respondent Nos.1 and 2/claim petitioners are entitled to payment of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate. Further, the claim petitioners are entitled to Rs.44,000/- each towards loss of parental consortium. In total, the claim petitioners are entitled to Rs.12,57,000/-.

8. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is allowed reducing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.17,50,000/- to Rs.12,57,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by the appellant and respondent Nos.3 and 4 jointly and severally. On such deposit, the respondent Nos.1 and 2/claim petitioners are entitled to withdraw the same equally, without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.

_________________

RENUKA YARA, J Date:10.07.2025 ssp