1. Heard Sri K.Siva Prasad, learned counsel representing Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for appellants/claimants and Sri Solomon Raju Manchala, learned Standing Counsel for respondent/Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation.

2. The appeal directed by the claimants against the order dated 02.08.2012 passed in M.V.O.P.No.207/2011 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Addl.District Judge, Guntur.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties before the learned Tribunal.

4. The appellants/claimants filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal U/s.163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- for the death of their son Sk.Mahaboob Basha, aged 17 years in a motor accident occurred on 31.10.1995 on account of the bus bearing No.AP 9Z 1887 belonging to the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation.

5. The learned Tribunal on consideration of the material placed before it, awarded a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- towards loss of dependency, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.2,000/- towards transport charges, Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate, meaning thereby a sum of Rs.1,36,500/- towards just compensation with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, till the date of deposit of the awarded amount.

6. The learned Tribunal deducted Rs.50,000/- paid by the respondent/APSRTC towards ex-gratia, and finally awarded a sum of Rs.86,500/- towards compensation. .

7. The contention of the appellant/claimant is that the learned Tribunal erred in fixing the annual income of the deceased only at Rs.15,000/-, on a lower side, and therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not a just compensation.

8. The learned counsel for appellants/claimants would submit that the claim petition was filed U/s.163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kishan Gopal and another Vs. Lala and others 2013 ACJ 2594 [LQ/SC/2013/936] , considered the II Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, and awarded Rs.30,000/- towards annual income in the case of death of a child between age group of 10 to 15 years, and awarded compensation; and in the case on hand, the deceased was aged 17 years on the date of death, and therefore, the order of the learned Tribunal fixing his annual income at Rs.15,000/- may be enhanced to Rs.30,000/- per annum.

9. The learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC would submit that the learned Tribunal on consideration of the material placed before it, fixed the annual income as per Schedule-II of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, and therefore, there is no necessity to interfere with the order of the learned Tribunal.

10. In the light of above rival contentions, the points that would arise for consideration in this appeal are as under:

1. Whether the order and decree passed by the learned Tribunal warrants interference of this Court

2. To what relief

11. POINT No.1:

Admittedly, the claim application was filed U/s.163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The deceased was aged 17 years and a non-earning member on the date of death, The offending vehicle i.e., bus bearing No.AP 9Z 1887 belongs to the respondent/APSRTC.

12. As per II-Schedule U/s.163-A of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, clause No.6, refers to notional income for compensation to those persons, who had no income prior to the accident, was fixed at Rs.15,000/- per annum. The learned Tribunal fixed the same as annual income of the deceased in the case, who was aged 17 years and studying intermediate at the time of accident.

13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kishan Gopal and another Vs. Lala and others, referred the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lata Wadhwa and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others 2001 (8) SCC 197, [LQ/SC/2001/1757] while examining the tortuous liability of the tort-feasors, and the criteria for awarding compensation for death of children in accident, between age group of 10 to 15 years observed that “rupee value has come down drastically from the year 1994, when the notional income of the non- earning member prior to the date of accident was fixed at Rs.15,000/-. Further, the deceased boy, had he been alive would have certainly contributed substantially to the family of the appellants by working hard.” The Hon’ble Apex Court in view of the aforesaid reasons, felt that it would be just and reasonable to take his notional income at Rs.30,000/- per annum, instead of Rs.15,000/- per annum fixed by the II-Schedule, and awarded loss of dependency accordingly. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court also awarded Rs.50,000/- under conventional heads and observed that the said amount would be fair, just and reasonable compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case.

14. In the case on hand, admittedly, the deceased was a young boy aged 17 years, studying intermediate course at the time of death. The claimants are the parents of the deceased. Therefore, had he been alive, he would have certainly contributed substantially to the family of the claimants. In that view of the matter, and in view of the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court referred above, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would be just and reasonable to take the notional income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- per annum.

15. Therefore, the notional income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.30,000/- per annum. One third of the income shall be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased as per II-Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Thus, the annual income of the deceased would be Rs.30,000 – 10,000 = Rs.20,000/- per annum. The multiplier applicable as per II-Schedule is ‘16’. Therefore, the loss of dependency would be Rs.20,000 x 16 = Rs.3,20,000/-. A sum of Rs.50,000/- be granted under conventional heads towards loss of love and affection, funeral expenses and loss of estate, in view of the above judgements of the Hon’ble Apex Court.

16. Therefore, the claimants in all are entitled for an amount of Rs.3,20,000 + 50,000 = Rs.3,70,000/-. Ex-gratia amount of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation is deducted. Thus, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.3,20,000/- towards just compensation. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.1,36,500/-. Therefore, the contention of the appellants that the learned Tribunal failed to award just compensation is having force. In that view of the matter, the finding of the learned Tribunal warrants interference of this Court.

17. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mona Baghel and others Vs. Sajjan Singh Yadaav and others 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 734, held that in the matter of compensation, the amount actually due and payable is to be awarded despite the claimant having sought for a lesser amount and the claim petition being valued at a lesser value. The law is well settled that in the matter of compensation, the amount actually due and payable is to be awarded despite the claimant having sought for a lesser amount and the claim petition being valued at a lesser value. Therefore, though the claimant sought for a lesser amount, as the claim petition being valued at lesser value for Rs.3,50,000/-, the amount actually due and payable to be awarded is Rs.3,70,000/-.

18. In view of the above judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court case, the Court shall award just compensation, even if it exceeds the amount claimed by the claimants, subject to payment of court fee. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellants are entitled to Rs.3,70,000/- towards just compensation.

19. The learned Tribunal awarded interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit. This Court do not find any ground to interfere with the rate of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal at 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition, till the date of deposit, in view of the Hon’ble Apex Court judgement in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mannat Johal 2019 ACJ 1849 (SC).

20. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal be allowed by setting aside the order and decree passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the point is answered.

21. POINT No.2: To what relief

In the light of finding on point No.1, the appeal be allowed, by setting aside the order dated 02.08.2012 passed in M.V.O.P.No.207/2011 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunalcum-VI Addl.District Judge, Guntur.

22. In the result, the appeal is allowed, by setting aside the order dated 02.08.2012 passed in M.V.O.P.No.207/2011 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Addl.District Judge, Guntur, by holding that the appellants/claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.3,20,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs and Twenty Thousand only), after deducting ex-gratia amount of Rs.50,000/- paid by the respondent/APSRTC, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, till the date of deposit. There shall be no order as to costs.

23. The respondent/Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.3,20,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs and Twenty Thousand only), along with accrued interest thereon, within eight (08) weeks from the date of judgment. In the event of the respondent/ Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation had already deposited some amount, the said amount be excluded, and the balance amount shall be deposited within eight (08) weeks from the date of judgment.

24. On such deposit, the Appellants/ claimants being the parents of the deceased are entitled to an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Sixty Thousand only) each, and they are permitted to withdraw the said amount along with accrued interest thereon.

25. The appellants/claimants are directed to pay the required court fee before the Tribunal, as per Rule 475(2) of A.P.M.V.Rules 1989, within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of judgment.

26. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.