Shyam Prasad Nagalla & Ors. vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & Ors.

2025 INSC 193 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2324 OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C)No. 818/2025)

SHYAM PRASAD NAGALLA & ORS. .....APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE BOARD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ORS. … RESPONDENT(S)

ORDER

Time taken for Time taken for Time taken for disposal of the original disposal of the appeal disposal of the appeal claim petition by by the High Court in this Court MACT 2 years 9 years 2 months

Leave granted.

2. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 7 th

June 2024, passed in M.A.C.M.A. No.1248 of 2015 passed by the High

Court of Telangana at Hyderabad. Impugned before it, in turn, was a Signature Not Verified

judgment and order of the XXVII Additional Chief Judge-cum-Chairman, Digitally signed by RAJNI MUKHI Date: 2025.02.11 18:48:38 IST Reason: 1 MACT at Secunderabad, dated 27th December 2014 in MVOP No.416 of

2012.

3. The Claimant-Appellants in the present Petition are the Husband

and two Daughters of the deceased Lakshmi Nagalla. The brief facts giving

rise to this Appeal are that on 13th June 2009, the deceased Lakshmi

Nagalla, aged 43 years, was travelling with her family in a Honda City Car

bearing registration No.AP 37 AL 7227 from Annavaram to Rajahmundry.

Upon reaching the circle leading to Prathipadu, the offending vehicle

bearing No.AP 11 Z 860, owned and operated by Respondent No.1,

approached from the opposite direction while driving in a rash and

negligent manner and collided with the Appellant’s car. This collision

resulted in the instantaneous death of the deceased, Lakshmi Nagalla and

inflicted multiple injuries upon the other occupants of the vehicle.

4. A claim petition was filed by the Appellants (dependants of

Lakshmi) before the Tribunal seeking compensation to the tune of

Rs.9,00,00,000/-, submitting therein that the deceased Lakshmi Nagalla got

her Master’s Degree in Computer Science from Southern College of

Technology University of Georgia (U.S.A) and was a permanent resident of

U.S.A., earning a monthly income in U.S Dollars, i.e., $11,600 working as

a Software Engineer in K-FORCE Services Corporation, U.S.A and as a

Real Estate commission salesperson in the State of Georgia.

2

5. The Tribunal, by its order, held that Respondent No.1 herein - the

Andra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, was liable to pay an

amount of Rs.8,03,42,476/- ($16,88,960) along with interest @ 7.5% per

annum by considering the monthly income of the deceased at $11,600 per

month after deduction of income tax and fixing the future prospects at 30%.

The Tribunal also granted an additional amount of Rs.2,35,000/- towards

conventional heads totalling the entire amount of compensation to be

Rs.8,05,77,476/-.

6. Being aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded,

Respondent No.1/Transport Corporation filed an appeal before the High

Court, on the ground that the Tribunal has incorrectly held the offending

vehicle to be driving rashly and a multiplier of 14 has been incorrectly

applied.

7. The High Court, vide the impugned order, affirmed the findings of

the Tribunal on the monthly income of the deceased, being $11,600. The

multiplier to be applied was reduced from 14 to 10 on account of the

deceased earning in foreign currency in accordance with the decision of

this Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd & Ors. v. Patrica Jean

Mahajan1. A sum of Rs.5,75,68,982/- was awarded.

1 (2002) 6 SCC 281 3

8. Yet dissatisfied, the Claimant-Appellant is now before us. The

major issue that arise for consideration, as recorded in our order dated 3 rd

January, 2025 are :-

a) Whether the petitioner would be entitled to compensation at the exchange rate of currency as on the date of the accident or on the date of the filing of the Petition?

b) Whether the High Court was justified in reducing the multiplier to ‘10’ from ‘14’ as taken by the Tribunal?

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the Appellant. The

Respondents have not entered appearance, despite service. On the first

issue, this Court in Jiju Kuruvila v. Kunjujamma Mohan2 had observed

that the date of filing of the claim petition is the proper date for fixing the

rate of exchange for computing compensation. This exposition has been

followed in DLF Ltd. v. Koncar Generators & Motors Ltd.3. The

conversion rate is therefore fixed at Rs.57/-, which was the prevalent figure

at the time of filing the claim petition.

10. On the second issue, as per National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.

Pranay Sethi4 the law is settled that the multiplier for a person aged 43

must be 14. No exception is made for a person earning in foreign currency.

2 (2013) 9 SCC 166 3 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1907 4 (2017) 16 SCC 680

4 In view of the aforesaid, the compensation now payable to the claimant-

appellant would be recalculated as under:

[

FINAL COMPENSATION

S.No. Compensation Amount Awarded In Heads Accordance with:

1. Monthly Income in $ 11,600 Dollars

2. Yearly Income 11,600 x 12 = $ 1,39,200

3. Future 1,39,200 + 41,760 Prospects (30%) = $ 1,80,960

4. Deduction (1/3) 1,80,960 – 60,320 3 Dependents = $ 1,20,640 National Insurance

5. Multiplier (14) 1,20,640 x 14 Co. Ltd. v.

age 43 years = $ 16,88,960 Pranay Sethi 6. Conversion Amount 16,88,960 x 57 (2017) 16 in Indian Rupees at = Rs.9,62,70,720/- SCC 680 rate of Rs. 57 in years Para 42 & 59 2012. 7. Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/- 8. Loss of Funeral Rs.18,150/- Expenses 9. Loss of consortium 48,400 x 3= Rs.96,8900/- TOTAL Rs.9,64,52,220/-

5

Thus, the difference in compensation is as under:

MACT High Court This Court Rs.8,03,42,476/- Rs.5,75,68,982/- Rs.9,64,52,220/- ($ 16,88,960) ($12,06,400) ($ 16,88,960)

11. The Civil Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The impugned

award dated 27th December 2014 passed in MVOP No.416 of 2012 by the

XXVII Additional Chief Judge-cum-Chairman, MACT at Secunderabad, as

modified vide the impugned order, stands further modified in terms of the

above. Interest is to be paid as awarded by the Tribunal.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

……………………………………J. (SANJAY KAROL)

…………………………………….J. (PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)

February 11, 2025;

New Delhi.

6