Proceeding Sheet vs Pranay Sethi And
2023 Latest Caselaw 3503 AP

                   HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

               MAIN CASE:M.A.C.M.A.No.342 of 2023

                             PROCEEDING SHEET

SL.     DATE                                 ORDER                                  OFFICE
NO.                                                                                  NOTE

02.   17.07.2023    RNT, J & BVLNC,J

                             Heard the learned counsel for the
                    appellant.
                    2.       The     appellant       is     the   A.P.S.R.T.C
                    Company Limited, the 1st respondent in

M.V.O.P.No.338 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Kurnool. The claimants are the respondents 1 to 4. Respondent No.5 is the driver of the offending vehicle.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that i) the Tribunal while calculating the monthly income of the deceased has not deducted 10% towards the income tax. ii) The age of the deceased is wrongly determined as 42 years contrary to the inquest report. (A2) and postmortem report (A3) which show 50 years and consequently iii) wrong multiplier of 14 has been applied which should be 13 at the age of 50 years.

4. We do not find force in the (ii) & iii) submission.

SL.          DATE                                ORDER                       OFFICE
NO.                                                                           NOTE

5. The age of the deceased as 42 years has been determined based on his service register (Ex.A.8). The age as mentioned in Ex.A.2 and A.3, cannot be conclusive proof. Ex.A.8 is the relevant evidence to sustain the finding. Thus, on the point of age, there is no illegality. Consequently, the multiplier of 14 at the age of 42 is as per the law.

6. So far as determination of monthly income of the deceased is concerned, the Tribunal has deducted Rs.1,000/- towards income tax and Rs.200/- towards profession tax. The submission that the income tax should have been deducted @ 10%, requires consideration.

7. The claimant respondents are entitled for just compensation is settled in law. What we find prima facie is that a) under the head of loss of consortium, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.40,000/- whereas there are 4 claimants and as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others1, each of the claimants is entitled for the amount for loss of consortium, separately. b) The Tribunal has awarded interest @ 7.5% p.a.

8. Issue notice to the respondents.

9. In addition to the normal mode of

2017(16) SCC 680

SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE service, the appellant shall take out notice to the respondents by R.P.A.D and file proof of service.

10. Post on 14.09.2023.

11. Subject to deposit of 80% of the awarded amount with costs and interest by the appellant, within a period of 15 days from today, before the Tribunal, the Execution of the award shall remain stayed till the next date of listing.

12. Out of the amount so deposited, the claimant respondents shall be at liberty to withdraw, proportionately in terms of the award, without furnishing security, subject to the further orders in the appeal.

13. The rest amount shall be kept in fixed deposits in nationalized bank initially for a period of 2 years.

________ RNT,J

____________ BVLNC,J Gk

SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE