IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

FRIDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SR!JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANOIKONDA

MOTOR ACCIDENTctvlLMISCELLANEOUSAPPEALNO: 1789oF 2018

Appeal filed under section 173 of M.v.Act, against order and Decree

dated 12.09.2017 passed in o.p.No.427 of 2014 on the file of the court of the

chairman, Motor Accident craims Tribunar (prr. District Judge), Nargonda.

Between:

1. Na.ndyala lndiramma, Wo. Late Goverdhan Reddy, Age. 43 years, Occ. House

hold,

2. Nandyala Radhika, D/o. Late Goverdhan Reddy, Age. 24years, occ. student

3. Nandyala Ram Reddy, s/o. Late Goverdhan Reddy, Age.23 years, occ. student

R/o. Choudampally Village, Narketpally Mandal, Nalgonda District.

...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS

AND

.'

[^li!fr1

tg?l 3';*'f F%lfil#il?fhTi

y#b,I/,h',11"+i"1

tTts,,,J,R

121001.

2. National lnsurance company Ltd, Regional office, T.p. Legal Hub, Jubli Building,

Nampally Station Road, HyA'eraOiO R?p. Oy its Minager.

(Policy No. 361 102t31 11916300006003 varid from 1 1 -1 -2014 to 1 0-01-201 5)

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

Counset forthe Appellants : SRt. ANNAPURNA SREERAM

Counsel forthe Respondent No.i : M.

yAKESHWAR

RAO

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : V. SAMBASIVARAO

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

TITE HON'BLE SRI JI,STICE NARSING RAO NANDIKOIIDA

JUDGMENT:

The appellants/claimants filed the present appear against the

Award and decree passed by the chairman, Motor Accident craims

Tribunal-cum-Principal

District Judge, Nalgonda (hereinafter referred to

'learned Tribunau in M . v. o.

p.

No .422 of 20 L4 , dated t2 .og .2o LT

,

wherein claimants/petitioners

had filed the claim petition under Section

L66 of M.V. Act, 19gg seeking compensation of Rs. r3,oo,ooo/- on

account of death of lst petitioner husband, namery sri N. Goverdhan

Reddy, (hereinafter referred to as 'the d.eceased') who died in acciclent

occurred on 04.06 .2OL4.

2' The brief facts of the case are that appellants/claimants who are

the wife, and children of the deceased fired M.v.o.p. No.42T of 2or4

under section 166 of the M.v. Act, 19gg seeking compensation for the

death of the deceased, who died in the accident alleged to have caused

due to rash and negligent driving of resporrdent No. 1. It is contended

that on 04.06-2014, the deceased and his rerative MaIIa Reddy, have

purchased the cotton seeds at Nalgonda and were returning to their

2

rt,R'J

M'A'C.' ti'A'No'' ? 89 of 20 7 8

village choudampally on motor cycle bearing No.AP-24 lAKl6558

and

Malla Reddy was driving the motor cycle and the deceased was

travelling on the said bike as a pillion rid.er. when they reached APSP

Battalion located in the outskirts of Anneparthy of Addanki-Narketpally

High way, the driver of the lorry (Truck) bearing No.HR-38-Q-85O2 came

in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the motor

cycle, due to which, the deceased and. the driver Malla Reddy sustained

grievous injuries and both died on the spot. The Police, Nalgonda

registered. a case in Crime No.151 of 2014 und'er Section 3C4 of IPC

agaiirst the driver cf the lorry, i-e., respond,ent No.1. On account of the

death of the deceased., the claimants filed claim petition seeking

compensation of Rs.13,OO,0OO/- under various heads'

3. The contention of the clairnants was that as on the date of

accident, the deceased 'as aged about 44 years and was earning

Rs.15,000/- per month being agriculturist. Due to the said accident' the

claimants lost their dependency. As such, filed claim petition seeking

compensation.

4. Before the learned Tribunal, respond.ent No.l remained ex parte'

Respondent No.2 filecl coUnter-affrdavit, denying all the averments made

-

,/'

,/

3

na.c.n-e.No.nagoffi4zog

in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took

place, age, avocation and income of the deceased and contended that

the rider was not holding vatid driving licence at the time of accident

and as such, the compensation cla.imed is excessive and prayed to

dismiss the claim petition.

5. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the

counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads

as under:

i) whether th.e deceased Nandyala Gouerd.han Reddy and. his relatiue

Basireddg Malta Reddg died in tlrc motor uehicle aciid.ent due to rash

and negligent driuing of the drtuer of one container Lorry ffruck) bearing

I{o.HR-38-Q-85O2?

ii) whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation? If so, fo

what amount and from wlam?

iii)To whnt relieft

6. The claimants got examined pws

1 and 2 and, got marked Exs.Al

to 46. No witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondents, but

got marked Ex.B1-policy copy.

7 - Having heard both the counsel and after perusing the oral and

documentary evidences placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal

came to the conclusion that the said accident occurred due to the rash

1-

4

.il.rR-,

fr.A.C.,I-A.No. I 7 89 of 20 1 A

and negligent driving of the driver of the said lorry and made the

respondents responsible for the accident and partly allowed the claim

petition, awarding an amount of Rs.7,49,0OO/- in favour of the

claimants and against respondent Nos.l and 2, with interest @

7o/o pet

annum from the date of f,rling of petition till the date of award and also

subsequent interest @ 60/0 from the date of award till the date of

realization.

8. Being unsatisfied and aggrieved by the compensation amount

awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal has been preferred

on the ground that the learned Tribunal did not consider the age of the

deceased and took ,/rong multiplier as 13 in place of L4 and that the

learned Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased at

Rs.6,000/-, though the deceased was earning Rs.15,O0O/- per month at

the time of the accident. Further, even though the petitioners are

entitled for 5Oo/o increment towards future prospects, the 'learned

Tribunal did not consider the same and the interest ought to have been

awarded @

g% per annum and love and affection also ought to have

been granted

-z

5

rv,vR.J

fi .A-c. tlt.A. No. t 7 E9 of 20 7 t

g. Heard Sri Annapurna Sreeram, learned counsel for the

appellants/claimants and Sri V. Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel for

respondent No.2-lnsurance Company. None appeared for respondent

No.1.

10. The point which arose for consideration before this Court in the

present appeal is that:

i) Whether the appellants are entitled for enhnnced

compensation as praged for? IJ so, to what ertent?

11. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that even

though the claimants got marked Ex.A6 which shows that the deceased

was doing agriculture on Ac.4.27 gts., and earning Rs.15,000/-, the

learned Tribunal failed to consider the monthly income of the deceased

at Rs.15,O00/- white awarding the compensation. Learned counsel

further relied upon the judgrnent of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Shailaja & Ors., v. Pavan B. Udupudi & Anotherr and the

relevant paragraph No.5 is reproduced hereinudner:

"5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned

counsel for the parties and by taking into consideration the date

of accident was on 11 .O5.20L2, the ceiling limit of the income

tax at the relevant point of time was Rs.1,80,OOO/- the income

of the deceased from profession is accordingly taken or in other

L

2025 Law Suit (SC) 860

6

.TIYRJ

|r.

^.C,

il, A, No. I 789 of 20 I I

wgrds we accept the income of the deceased from profession to

said extent as he was an advocate with 17 years of standing.

Absence of income proof cannot be a grou.rd to deny just an?

reasonable compensation, particularty when there is no dispute

that deceased was having a standin g-of LT years at the Bar. The

Courts below concurrentll, 1-r"" accepted that deceased owned

around 3 acres of agricultural land as evident from Ex.p.w-13

and 14 and yet was not persuaded to construe the income

generated from the agricultural operations, for reasons best

known. To maintain the said agricultural land and carry on the

operations, the claimants have to necessarily explnd an

amount and Rs.3,ooo /- per acre and same would be required to

be spent for carrying on the agricultural operations or in other

words at least a sum of Rs.1o,0oo/- per month will have to be

paid towards supervision charges for maintaining 3 acres of

agricultural land, nccessarily thls arnount has to be construed

as the loss of income to the dependents of the deceased. The

supervision cha-rges which claimants will have to speird would

be Rs.10,000/- per month (Rs. r,2o,ooo/- per year). Hence total

earning of the deceased comes to Rs.3,OO,bOOi_ per year. If we

add 1096 towar'is futur.e prospects, the annuai income comes to

Rs.3,3o,0oo

/ -- Taking note of the number of dependents, if we

deduct L/4th, the amount wouid be Rs.2,4Z,iOO1_ per year.

c-orresponding to the age of the deceased (51 years), murtiplier

ol

11

would be appricable. Thus, the amount oicompensation to

which claimants would be entitled towa.rds loss of income would

be Rs.27,22,500/- (2,4Z,SOO X 11). if we further add

Rs.2,40,000/- towards loss of love and a-ffection and filiat

compensation and Rs.75,ooo/- under the head of

transportation of dead body and funeral expenses, total amount

of compensation to which claimants would be entitled to would

be Rs. 30,37,500/-. After deducting the amount of

compensation awarded by the High court i.e., Rs.15,76,g00/-

the enhanced compensation payable would be Rs. 14,60,T00/-".

12' Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has vehemently contended

that after considering the entire evidence available on record, the

learned Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased as

7

ilIIRJ

U.A.c.uA. No. t 7a9 of 20 I a

Rs.6,000 /- td award.ed compensation, which needs no interference'

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has further relied upon the

judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of New India

Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Yogesh Devi and othersz and the relevant

paragraph Nos.10 and 11 are reproduced hereunder:

"10. In Ja.sbir Kaur's case (supra), the claim was based on an

assertion that tLrc d.eceased" wg;s an agria,tlturist earning an

amount o/Rs. 1O,0OO/- per month by anltiuating his land. Dealing

with the question, this Court held:

"8. xxxxxxxxx. The land. possessed by the deceased still

remains with the claimants as his legal heirs. Tlrcre is howeuer a

possibility that ttrc claimants may be reEtired to engage persons

'to

look i7., agriculture. Therefore, the normal rule about the

depriuation of in"o^" is not strictlg applicable to cases uthere

agricultural iicome is the source. Attendant cirqtmstances haue to

be considered."

11. Coming to the case on ?wnd, the claim is based on the

assertion that the deceased" owned agricultural land apart from

the abouementioned three mini-buses. Ttrc High Court reiected the

claim insofar as if is based on tLrc income from the land, on the

ground tnat tne income would. still continue to accrue to the benefit

"oY

tn" family. Unfortunately, the High Court fgiteg

to see thnt the

icz*" logic- *ouid" Ue appticable euen to the iname from

the

abouemintioned. three buies. The asset (three mini-buses) would

still continue with the famtlg and fetch income. Tlrc only

difference, perhaps, would. be that during his lW time the

d.eceased wrs *anaging the buses, but now, the claimnnts may

Itnue to engage soffLe competent person to manage tlte asset,

which iru fitrn, would" require some pagment to be made to such a

mano.ger. To the exteit of such pagment,

lhere

would be a

depleiion in the net income aeruing to the claimants out of the

asset. Tlerefore, the amount reEtired for engaging the beruic.e of a

manager oia tfo salary payable to a driuer - as it is assefted that

the deceased. himset| isZa to drtu" one of the three buses - would

z

zot2 (4) ALD 101 (sc)

8

JV,VR.J

,LA.C. M.A.No. I 789 of 20 18

be the loss fo the ctaimants. In the norrnal course the claimants

are expected to addue euidence as to wlmt would. be the

quantum of depletion in the income from the abouementionei

asset on account of the abouementionecr

factors. unfortunatery, no

sucheuidence utas led. bg the claimants".

13' Learned counsel for respondent No.2 further argued that it is only

a single crop land and the question of supervisory charges which the

appellants are claiming cannot be awarded, but considering the

judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants, there is

no dispute and denial in respect of the deceased being in possession of

the land to an extent of Ac.4.27 gts., which is agricultural land as held

by the Hon'ble supreme court in the case of State of Haryana and

Another v. Jasbir Kaur and others3, wherein, relevant paragraph No.g

is reproduced herein under:

"8. It is clear on d bare read.ing of the Tribunal,s d.ecdsron as

affr.naed. bg tlrc High cour.t.thnt no rnaterial uas placed. beftrethe

former to proue as to ,tlnt was the income. As rightlg coitended.

bg learned counset for the appellants, *rcre was not euen qna

materiat ad.duced to shout tgpe of tand which the d.eceased.

possessed. The matter can be approached

from a dtfferent angle.

TIE land possessed by the diceased, itrt remains with the

claimants as his legal h.eirs. There i.s houteuer a possibilitg that

th.e claimant2-mag be reEtired to engage persons to rook after

agriailhtre. Therefore, th.e normal rutb auiut the depriuation of

incom.e rs n?t strictty applicable to cases where

-agricultural

iname is the source. Attend.ant circum.stances haue to be

3

1zoos1 z scc 484

9

IYIIf,.J

U.A.C,X.A. No. tzag of 20, a

consid.ered. F rthermore, there u)as no material before the

Tribunal to arriue at the

-figure

of Rs.4500 per montlu No reason

hns been indicated to arriue at this figare. In tlrc l@ht of wlwt hns

been discassed aboue about 'iust compensation" the income

cannot be estimated without any material to iustify

the estimation'

In the normql course, we utould hnue remitted the matter back to

the Tribunal for fresh consideration. But considering tlrc fact that

one aoung

person losf his life, and the matter was pending before

the

-Tribiiat

and fue High Court for some Aears, we feel it

appropriate to take all releuant factors irfio cottsideration, and

decid.e the matter. Gauzing *Le releuant aspects, noted aboue, tlrc

montltly income is fixed at Rs.3OOO/ - per month and after

d.eductl,ng Rs.l,ooo/ -

1or

personal expenses, financial contribution

so far oi *o claimants are concerned is fixed at Rs.2,o0o/ - per

minth. Worked. out on tle basfs of multiplier of 78, the

compensation is fixed at Rs.4,32,OOO/ -. T?e amount of Rs.2,OOO/ -

awirded bg the Tribunal for funeral

expenses is not interfered

with and thus the total compensation comes to Rs.4,34,O0O/ -. The

rate of interest i.e. 9% per annum as fix"d by the Tlibunal and

affirmed" by the High court is appropriate, and does not need any

a[teration.-After ad"justing the sum which was deposited pursuant

to the. ord.ei of this Court d.ated 14.12.2007, the balance amount

along with interest shalt be deposited within three montls from

todiy before t?rc Trtbunal. On the deposit being made along with

the amount alread.y d.eposited", a sum of Rs.3 lakhs shall be kept

in the _fixed deposit in the name of the claimants and a sum of

Rs.SO,bOOt- siatt be kept tn frxed deposit in the name of Smt.

Bald.eu Kaur, mother of the d.eceased. Theg slnll be entitled to

d.raut interest on the deposit, which shnll be re-deposited for

furtlrcr

terrns of fiue Aears. In case of urgent need, it slwll be open

-to

th.e claimants to moue Tribunal for release of ang part of the

amount in d.eposit. Tle Tribunal shall @nsider the reEtest for

utithdrawat aid. shall direct withdrawal in case of an urgent need

and not otheruise of suchsum as would meet the need. It shall be

specifically indicatia to the Bank wlrcre the deposits are to be

mad.e tlnt no aduance or withd.rawal of ang kind stto;ll be

permitted without the ord"er of the Tibunal. It stwll be open to the

-claimants

to approach ttrc Tribunal for uariance of the ord9l

relating to aepisit in ftxed. deposit, if any other sch.eme would

fetch better returns and. also would prouide rewlar and

permanent income".

10

IVIvIlJ

M.A.C.,,,A.No.l7a9 of 20 I A

14' In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that though the

appellants have succeed.ed to the land to an extent of Ac.4.27 gts., there

would not be loss of income of the petitioners, as rightly held by the

Honble supreme court and the petitioners for the purpose of doing

agriculture, they may incur some amount for the purpose of engaging

supervisor for cultivation of the land or they may involve in the said

cultivation. In such case, obviously, they have to incur certain amount.

15' Taking into consideration of the judgment of the Honble Supreme

court cited in Shailaja case (supraf, this court is arso of the opinion

that an amount of Rs.2, ooo /- per acre can be taken as a basis for

assessing the notional income of the deceased. The actual income would

be Rs'2,OOO

/ - and when multiplied with the extent of lancl ownect by the

deceased, it would come to Rs.gr54C t- (Rs.2OOO /_X Ac.4.2T gts.,).

16. As per the decision of Honble Supreme court in Nationo,r

rnsttrance compang Ltmited. vs. pranag sethi and. othersq and

considering the age of the deceased as 45 years as on the date of

accident which is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants,

additional 25o/" of the income has to be added towards future prospects

42017 ACJ2700

11

to the monthly income of the d.eceased. Therefore, the monthly income of

the d,eceased would come to Rs. tO,675l- (Rs.8,540/- + Rs'2,135/-)' The

annual income of the d.eceased would come to Rs.1,28,LOOl-

(Rs.10,67 5l- X 12) and, out of which, 1/3 has to be deducted towards

the personal expenses of the deceased as the dependants are three in

number. Then the actual annual income would come to Rs'85,40O1-

(Rs.1 ,28,LOO /-

(-) Rs.a2,7OO l-l'

17. As per the column No.4 of schedule fixed in the judgment of the

Apex Court in Sarlcr Verma a. Delhi Transpott CorporatTons

'

anld

considering the age of the d.eceased as 45 years, the appropriate

multiplier applicable for the deceased age is '14'' Thus, the total loss of

dependency would come to Rs.11,95,600/- (Rs.85,4OO/- x 14).

18. The appellants/claimants are further entitted to Rs'18,LsO1-

(Rs.15,000/- + lOo/o + 1O%) towards loss of estate and Rs'18,150/-

(Rs. 15,00 O l-

+ looh + 1o%) towards funeral expenses, as per Pranag

Setlri's Judgrnent (cited suPra).

s

2oo9 ACI 1298 (sc)

I{ilRJ

LA.C.fi .A. tto. t 7a!, of 20' I

a

L2

ivlvP-J

tt.,t cu.t. No. t 789 oiidl8

19. Further, considering that appelrant No.1 being the wife of

deceased, she is entitred to a sum of Rs.4g, 4ool-under the head of

,ross

of consortium' as per pranag

sethi's Judgment (cited supra).

20' Appellant Nos.2 and 3 being the children of the deceased, they are

entitled for compensation to a sum of Rs.96,goo/- (Rs.4g,40o x 2l

under the head of 'ross of parental consortium, as per Magma General

Insurance campany Limited. o. Nanu R,,m aris chuhnt R..rn

21' In sarla vermq.'s ccse (cited. aboae), t,.e Hon,ble Apex court,

rvhile elaborating the concept of ijust compensation, observed as under:

"Past compensatioT is ad.equate compensation which is fair and

equitable on the facts and. .irc,mstances of the case, to make

good fhe /oss suffered as a result.of the- *ing,-L" p, as moneA

can do so, hy applging, the well settled pincioles relatirry to

attard of c.ompensation. It is not intend.ea ,o'i" o bonanza,

22.considering the above assessment made by this court, appeilants

wor;ld be entitled to as follows:

ual Income (of the deceased)

8,540/- X 12 Rs.1,02,4gol_

ii)Total Annual Income = AnnualIncome + Future

Prospects (Annual Income X2Syo1 =

1,O2,48O/- + Rs.25,62O/- :

Rs.1,2g, LOOI_

Rs

I

i) , Annttal Dependency =\61Annual Income - l/3

13

ItittRJ

&A.C.X.A. Itu. t 7Ag of 20 t t

deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased

Rs. 1,28, 1OO/- (-) Rs.a7,7OOl- Rs.85,4OO/-

v)Claimants' entitlementtowards conventional heads :

Loss of Estate + fneralExpenses + loss of sPousal

consortium + loss of Parental Consortium:

Rs.18,150/-

+ Rs.18,150/- + Rs'48,400 + Rs'96'8O0 =

Total

Rs.13,77,10o.1'

23. Thus, the appellants/claimants are entitled to the enhanced

compensation of Rs. Lg,77r1OO/- as against the awarded amount of

Rs.7,49,0 OO I - by the learned Tribunal'

24. considering the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal

has rightly awarded the rate of interest @

7

oh

per annum and the same

need.s no interference by this Court. Hence, this Court is of the opinion

that the petitioners/claimants are entitled for the interest @

7o/o on t}lre

enhanced arnount.

1

) 25. This point is answered accordingly in favour of the appellants and \

against the respondents. The claimants are entitled' for an enhanced

compensation of Rs. t3r77 r1OO/-'

I

Rs.11 ,95,6001-

Total Dependency = Annual Dependency x

Multiplier = Rs.85,4OO l

- x 14

Applied

iv)

Rs.1,81 ,500/-

/

,/

I

t4

a-a.c-ilt.r*-.tztg o#fa

26' Accordingly, the M.A.c.M.A is ailowed, enhancing the

compensation from Rs.7,49,0o0/- to Rs. LgrTzrroot- with interest at

the rate

@ 7o/o p'a' on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till

the date of tealization. The respondents directed to deposit the said

amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the

amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from

the receipt of a copy of this judgment. The respond.ents are directed to

deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due

ci.edit Lo the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two

months from the date of receipt of a cop5z of this judgment. The

compensation amount shall be apportioned among the claimants in the

same manner and ratio as ordere<I by the learned Tribunal. on such

deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the same without

furnishing any surety. There sha, be no order as to costs.

27 Miscellaneous petitions,

1{

any are pending, sha[ stand closed.

SD/ - T.SRINIVASA REDDY

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPYII

SECTION OFFICER

/

I

To,

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

GE

The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge,

Nalgonda.

one cc to sRt- ANNAPURNA SREERAM Advocate topucl

one cc to sRt. M. YAKESHWAR RAO Aavo&GloFlct

-'

One CC to SRt. V. SAMBASIVARAO, ndvocate iOeuCl

Two CD Copies

tW

HIGH COURT

DATED:04l0TIZO}S

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.1789 of 2O1B

ALLOWTNG THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

a

? o3 Jl,rl

*

EHsT

t

2r?6

$./

[ 34431

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

FRIDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

MO CCIDENT CIVIL M

Betvveen:

1. Nandyala lndiramma, Wo. Late Goverdhan Reddy, Age' 43 yearc, Occ' House

hold,

2. Nandyala Radhika, D/o. Late Goverdhan Reddy, Age. 24 years, Occ student

3.NandyalaRamReddy,S/o.LateGoverdhanReddy,Age'23years,Occ'student

R/o. Choudampally Village, Narketpally Mandal, Nalgonda District'

...APPELLANTSTPETITIONERS

AND

1. Krishna Kumar, S/o. Sh. Uday Ram' Age- Majorr Rl/o' H'No' 63, Spctor-2-]p'

"

iil;ilg iioiio cotoni, Farid'abad taniit and District, Haryana State, Pin-

121001.

2. National lnsurance company Ltd, Regional office, T.P. Legal Hub, Jubli Building,

Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad Rep. by its Manager.

(Policy No. 361 1 O2tg1 I 1

g

16300006003 valid from 1 1 -1 -20 1 4 to 1 0-01 -20 1 5)

...RESPONDENTS'RESPONDENTS

AppealfiledunderSectionlT3ofM.V.Act,againstOrderandDecree

dated 12.09.2017 passed in o.P.No.427 ot 2014 on the file of the court of the

Chairman, Motoi Accident Claims Tribunal (Prl. District Judge), Nalgonda'

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of

appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower court and the material papers in

the case and upon hearing the argument of SRI ANNAPURNASREERAM,

Advocate for the Appellants and sRl M. YAKESHWAR RAO, Advocate appeared for

Respondent No.1 and

Respondent No. 2.

ELLAN APPL NO: oF 20

SRI V. SAMBA SIVA RAO, Advocate appeared for

This Court doth Order and Decrce as follows:

'l. That the Motor Accident civir Misceilaneous Appear be and is hereby

allowed.

2. That the compensation be and is hereby enhanced from Rs.7,49,000/_ to

Rs.13,77,100/- with interest at the rate

@

7o/o p.a. on the enhanced amount

from the date of petition till the date of realization.

3. That the respondents be and is hereby directed to deposit the said amount

together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount arready

deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of

this judgment.

4. That the compensation amount shail be apportioned among the craimants in

the same manner and ratio as ordered by the learned Tribunal.

5. That on such deposit by the respondents, the craimants are hereby permitted

to withdraw the same without furnishing any surety.

6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.

SD'- MOHD.ISMAIL

DEPUTY REGISTRAR

llTrue Copyll

CTION OFFICER

To

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Trib

Judge, Nalgonda.

2. Two CD Copies.

GE/PSL

m-Principal District

W

HIGH COURT

DATED:04/0712025

DECREE

MACMA.No.1789 of 2018

ALLOWNG THE MACMAWTHOUT COSTS

1

6

\1/