Allowed

National Insurance Company Limited v. Ekabattula Alias Akkabottola Samabaiah

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Nov 2024MACMA/318/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced motor accident compensation from Rs.16.83 lakhs to Rs.29.86 lakhs, applying a multiplier based on the deceased's age and reassessing his income considering his employment in Kuwait.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.29,86,000 with interest; 3rd petitioner permitted to withdraw her share of Rs.13,03,000.

National Insurance Company Limited Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

pw'

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS

¶6

lyiOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NOS: 2928 OF

¶7

2017 AND 318 OF 2018

¶8

MACMA NO: 2928 OF 2017:

¶9

Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, praying that the High Court may be pleased to allow the appeal and modify the Award dated 24.08.2017 passed in M.V.O.P.No.759 of 2011 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lll Additional District Judge, Rajampet, by difference amount of the compensation by Rs.3,17,000/i.e. from Rs. 16,83,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.20,00,000/- as asked for in the claim petition with interest at 12% p.a. on the sum of Rs.3,17,000/- from the date of the petition till the date of payment or deposit. Between: 1. Ekabattula @ Akkabottia Sambaiah (Died), S/o.Veerachari, aged about 50 years, Occ.Carpenter, R/o.Prabhalaveedu Village, B.Kodur Mandal, Kadapa District.

¶10

Ekabattula @ Akkabottia Anuradha (Died), W/o.Sambaiah, aged about 45 years, Occ;Housewife, R/o.Prabhalaveedu Village, B.Kodur Mandal, Kadapa District.

¶11

(2"'* Petitioner died on 25.10.2024 and her LR is already^onRecord as Petitioner No.3 as per Court Order, dated 20.11.2024 in Memo USR.No. 105434/2024)

¶12

Ekabattula @ Akkabottia Vasundhara, D/o.Sambaiah,^agedabout19 years, Occ:Student, being Minor, rep. by her natural^{guardianandfather} Ekabattula @ Akkabottia Sambaiah, 1 St appellant herein.

¶13

. R/o.Prabhalaveedu Village, B.Kodur Mandal, Kadapa^District.

¶14

(Petitioner No.3 is declared as Major, vide Court Order dated 19.09.2024 in USR.No.36055/2018)

¶15

...Appellants/Petitioners

¶16

AND

¶17

K.Bhupal Reddy, S/o.Balaswamy Reddy, aged major.^Owneroflorry MP/KA01-AA-5960, R/o.No.13, 4th Main, N.T.Peta, Bangalore, Karnataka State.

¶18

National Insurance Company Ltd., rep. by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Kurnool, Kurnool District, A.P.

¶19

...Respondents/Respondents

¶20

Counsel for the Appellants; Sri Surepalli Madhava Rao

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri M.Sravan Kumar,^representing

¶22

Sri Vuppalapati Srinivasa Raju

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent N0.I

¶24

MACMA NO: 318 OF 2018:

¶25

Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles^{Act,againstthe} Judgment and Decree, dated 24.08.2017 passed in M.V.O.P.No.759^of2011 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lll Additional District Judge, Rajampet, YSR Kadapa District.

¶26

Between:

¶27

The National Insurance Company Limited, represented^{byitsDivisional} Manager, Divisional Office, Kurnool.

¶28

...Appellant/Respondent No.2

¶29

AND

¶30

Ekabattula @ Akkabottia Sambaiah (Died), S/o.Veerachari,^agedabout 50 years Hindu, Carpenter, R/o.Prabhalaveedu Village, B.Kodur Mandal, Kadapa District.

¶31

Ekabattula @ Akkabottia Anuradha (Died), W/o.Sambaiah,^agedabout 45 years, Hindu Housewife, R/o.Prabhalaveedu Village, B.Kodur Mandal, Kadapa District.

¶32

(2"^ Respondent died on 25.10.2024 and her LR is already on Record as R3 as per Court Order, dated 20.11.2024 in Memo USR.No.105433/2024)

¶33

Ekabattula @ Akkabottia Vasundhara, D/o.Sambaiah,^agedabout19 years, Hindu, Student, Minor, rep. by her natural Guardian^andfather, who is 1 St respondent herein. R/o.Prabhalaveedu Village, B.Kodur Mandal, Kadapa District.

¶34

(lA No.5/2018 ordered on 24-06-2021 under which the^trialCourtIn lA No.329 of 2018 in MVOP No.759 of 2011 Order dated^21-05-2018 R3 is declared as Major)

¶35

...Respondents/Petitioners 1 to 3

¶36

K.Bhupal Reddy, S/o.Balaswamy Reddy, aged Major,^Owner of the Lorry bearing No.KA01-AA-5960, R/o.No.13, 4 th Main, N.T.Peta, Bangalore, Karnataka State.

¶37

...Respondent/Respondent No.1

¶38

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶39

¶40

Petition filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 41 days in filing of MAGMA and lA against the Judgment and Decree dated 24.08.2017 passed in MVOP No.759 of 2011 on the file of the MACT-cum-lll Additional District Judge, Rajampet.

¶41

lA NO: 4 OF 2018

¶42

Between:

¶43

Ekabattula @ Akkabottia Sambaiah, S/o.Veerachari, aged about 51 years, Occ:Carpenter, R/o.Prabhalaveedu Village, B.Kodur Mandal, Kadapa District.

¶44

Ekabattula @ Akkabottia Anuradha, W/o.Sambaiah, aged about 46 years, Occ:Housewife, R/o.Prabhalaveedu Village, B.Kodur Mandal, Kadapa District.

¶45

Ekabattula @ Akkabottia Vasundhara, D/o.Sambaiah, aged about 19 years, Occ.Student, R/o.Prabhalaveedu Village, B.Kodur Mandal, Kadapa District.

¶46

...Respondents 1 to 3

¶47

AND

¶48

K.Bhupal Reddy, S/o.Balaswamy Reddy, aged Major, Owner of lorry MP/KA01-11-5960, R/o.No.13 4th Main, N.T.Peta, Bangalore

¶49

Karnataka State.

¶50

...Respondent No.1/Respondent No.4

¶51

1. National Insurance Company Ltd., rep. by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Kurnool, Kurnool District, A.P.

¶52

...Respondent No.2/Appellant

¶53

¶54

that in the circumstances Petition filed under Section 151 CPC praying stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,^{theHighCourtmaybe} Petitioner/Claimant No.3/Respondent No 3 to pleased to permit the 3rd withdraw her share of compensation as per the Judgment^{andDecreeoutof} 2nd Respondent herein in due the 50% compensation deposited by the I.A. No.2 of 2018 in compliance of the Stay Order dated 22.06.2018 in MACMA No.318 2018 on the file of this Court.

¶55

Sri Sri M.Sravan Kumar, representing Counsel for the Appellant:

¶56

Sri Vuppalapati Srinivasa Raju

¶57

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: Sri Surepalli^MadhavaRao

¶58

Counsel for the Respondent No.4:--

¶59

The Court made the following Common Judgment:

¶60

Pi;

¶61

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS

¶62

M.A.C.M.A.No.29?« nf 7ni7 & 318 of 2018

¶63

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶64

These appeals are directed against the order, dated^24.08.2017 passed in M.V.O.P.No.759 of 2011 on the file of the^{learnedChairman,} Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Rajampet (hereinafter called as 'the Tribunal')-

¶65

Since these appeals arise out of same order and as^thematerial facts are common, the same are being disposed of by way of common judgment.

¶66

M.A.C.M.A.No.2928 of 2017 is preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. The Respondent No.l is owner^oflorry and Respondent No.2 is Insurer of lorry bearing No.KA^01AA5960 (herein after called as 'the crime vehicle'). 4. M.A.C.M.A.No.318 of 2018 is preferred by the Insurer of lorry bearing No.KA 01 AA 5960. The Respondent Nos.l to3 herein are claimants. Respondent No.4 is owner of crime lorry. 5. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter^arereferred as they arrayed before the tribunal.

¶67

The case of the claimants, in the petition before the^Tribunal is that:

¶68

i). The petitioner Nos.l and 2 are the parents of the deceased Ekabattula @ Akkabottia Ramabrahmam and petitioner No.3 is the sister of the deceased. 15 days prior to

¶69

the date of accident i.e, on 28 08 5ni i ^ . o.u».20li the deceased who IS working in Kuwait as Carpenter Supervisor in Abdul Karim AIYahya Contracting & Trading Company came to India to see his parents and on the same day, his villager by name Williamswho is also coming from Kuwait and in order to receive the said Williams, the relatives of Williams i.e, Goduganuru Gopaiah, Siva @ Yerra Gopaiah and deceased engaged a Tata Sumo bearing No.AP04 TV 5151 at Badvel and while proceeding towards Madras, and when the vehicle reached near Gurukula School of Mukkavaripalli Village on Kadapa - Renigunta Main Road, the lorry bearing No.KA 01 AA 5960 came in opposite direction being driven by its driyer in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and without applying dim and dip lights, dashed against the Tata Sumo. As a result, the deceased and other inmates of the vehicles sustained injuries. The deceased sustained severe fatal injuries and all were shifted to Government Hospital, Rajampet in Ambulance, where doctors examined the deceased and declared as dead. Thereafter, a case was registered vide Crime No.70 of 2011 of Obulavaripalli Police Station and charge sheet was laid. Ill) Seeking for compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- along^with interest against respondents on the death of the deceased in

¶70

¶71

¶72

the motor accident, the claimants filed motor vehicle original petition.

¶73

Respondent No.l remained exparte.

¶74

Respondent No.l remained exparte. 8. Respondent No.2 filed written statement denying the^material averments made by the petitioners in their petition. It is contended that the petitioners has to prove all the allegations^mentioned in the petition by way of documentary evidence and eye witnesses^andthat it is to be proved that the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of driver of lorry by filing necessary documents^i.e., FIR, Charge Sheet, Wound Certificate. The petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary documents for the claim. The petitioners must prove that Respondent No.l vehicle was insured with Respondent No.2 under valid coverage of policy and that the policy was in^{forceatthetimeof} accident and also that the driver of crime vehicle has valid and subsisting driving license at the time of accident subject to certain terms and conditions. The petitioners must prove the^incomeofthe deceased with proper documentary evidence. The claim claimed by the petitioners is excessive and prays to dismiss the petition.

¶75

Basing on the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal^settledthe following issues for enquiry:

¶76

Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No.KA 01 AA 5960,

¶77

¶78

resulting the death of the deceased by name Ekabattula @ AkkabattulaAnuradhaRamabrahmam on 28.08.2011? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, and if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief?

¶79

During the course of enquiry before the tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.l to A.7 are marked. On behalf of the respondents, RWl and RW2 were examined and Ex.Bl and B2 are marked.

¶80

On the material, the tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, held that the claimants are entitled compensation of Rs.16,83,000/- with interest at 9 % per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by the Respondent Nos.l and 2.

¶81

Heard Sri S. Madhava Rao, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners and Sri Sravan Kumar, learned counsel representing on behalf of Sri Uppalapati Srinivasa Raju, leaned standing counsel for the insurer.

¶82

Sri S. Madhava Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the tribunal did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence on record properly and came to a conclusion that the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.16,83,000/- only. The deceased used to earn Rs.63,000/- per month in Indian Currency while working as

¶83

, /* /

¶84

Carpentry Supervisor in Kuwait and the same was proved by Ex.A7 salary certificate. Without considering the said fact,^{thetribunalerred} in notionally assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- when there is ample evidence on record.^The tribunal ought to have assessed the loss of dependency without deducting 50% of the monthly income of the deceased since petitioner^No.3isaminor sister of the deceased and who is depending upon him.

¶85

Sri Sravan Kumar, learned counsel representing on behalf^ofSri Uppalapati Srinivasa Raju, leaned standing counsel for the insurer/Respondent No.2 submits that there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the TATA Sumo as evidenced from RWs 1 and 2 and Ex.B2. The tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- without any proper evidence on record and proper documentary evidence. The compensation awarded by the tribunal is highly excessive,^exorbitant and unjust.

¶86

Now, the following points arise for determination:

¶87

Whether there is any flaw in the compensation awarded by the tribunal to the claimants? and

¶88

To what relief?

¶89

16i POINT No.l: In any claim of motor accident cases,^the initial burden is upon the petitioners/claimants to establish that the accident occurred due to rash or negligent act of the driver of offending vehicle.

¶90

¶91

It is the specific contention ot the claimants that when the deceased along with other inmates are travelling in a Tata Sumo bearing No.AP 04 TV 5151, the lorry bearing No.KAOI AA 5960 came in opposite direction being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the TATA Sumo, resulting. the deceased died and other inmates sustained severe injuries.

¶92

To prove the accident, the father of the deceased is examined as PWl. But, it is aware that he is not an eye witness to the accident. The petitioners also got examined P\N2 who is admittedly eye witness to the accident who is travelling ir, the Tata Sumo. On overall consideration of evidence of PWs 1 and 2, as rightly held by the tribunal, it is can be said that the accident occurred only due to negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. As per Ex.R2 Rough Sketch also, it can be inferred that the accident occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry only.

¶93

Now coming to the quantum of compensation, it is settled law that, three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in case of death (1) Age of the deceased (2) Income of the deceased and; (3) Number of dependents. Once these facts are determined, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma V. Delhi

¶94

¶95

Transport Corporation^ has prescribed a structured method of calculation as below:

¶96

'To have uniformity and consistency the Tribunais should determine compensation in cases of death by following^well-settled steps:

¶97

Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand)

¶98

The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance, which is^{consideredtobe} the contribution to the dependent family constitutes the multiplicand.

¶99

Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier)

¶100

Having regard to the age of the deceased and period^ofactive caree,r the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident Having regard to several imponderables^inlifeand economic factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this court. The multiplier should^{bechosenfromthe} said table with reference to the age of the deceased.

¶101

Step 3 (Actual calculation)

¶102

The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the "loss of dependency"^tothe famil.y

¶103

Thereafte,r a conventional amount in the range of Rs.5000/-^to Rs. 10,000/- may be added as loss of estate. Where^{thedeceasedis} survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of Rs.5000/- to Rs. 10,000/- should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of^thedeceased.

¶104

(2009) 6 see 121

¶105

¶106

The funeral expenses, cost of incurred) and cost of any medical treatT''°'^^^'°" death (ifincurred) should also be added.'

¶107

In the present case, the Tribunal 9fter taking into consideration of crime record in particular Inquest Proceedings, the age of the deceased is taken as 25 years which i- IS not in dispute as observed by the Tribunal. The petitioners in order to prove the income of the deceased has relied on EX.A7 Salary Certificate said to have been issued by the General Director of the Q- '-ompany where the deceased is working as Carpenter Supervisor. The other discrepancies pointed out by the Respondents are minute. T^'he Tribunal after taking into consideration of the fact that the deceased used to work as a Carpenter and young man of 25 years age. assessed his monthly income at Rs.10,000/- since it is of the year 2011 and after applying multiplier in terms of Sarla Varam's and deducting the income towards personal and living expenses, in total awarded compensation of Rs. 16,83,000/-. 21. But, as far as the income of the deceased i IS concerned, the petitioners relied on Ex.A7 Salary Certificate of the deceased issued by Abdul Karim Al-Yahya Contracting & Trading Company. 22. The Hon'ble Apex Court in K. Ramya & Ors vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd & Anr [2022 Live Law (SC) 816], wherein it was held that 'compensation must be fai,r reasonable, an(P equitable.

¶108

¶109

Furthe,r the determination of quantum is a fact-dependent^exercise which must be iiberai and not parsimonious!'

¶110

In the instance case, the year of the deceased died is 2011 and during the said period a person working in Arab Countries on an average used to earn more than Rs.30,000/for skill work. In the instant case, the deceased used to work as a Carpenter and hence, his income can be notionally assessed at Rs.20,000/- per^monthwhich would be just and proper.

¶111

In National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi^^the Hon'ble Supreme Court has allovved adding of certain percentage of income towards future prospects of the deceased.Now, 50% of the income should be added for future prospects and thereby it would be Rs.30,000/(Rs.20,000/+ Rs. 10,000/-). Therefore, it would be Rs.3,60,000/- (Rs.30,000 x 12). Out of which, 10% can be deducted towards income tax, then it would be Rs.Rs.3,24,000/ per annum. Further, as the deceased herein is a bachelor, 50% of the income shall be deducted towards personal and living expenses, which would be Rs.1,62,000/- per annum.

¶112

Since the age of the deceased is 25 years, the multiplier applicable to him is '18' and if the multiplicand is multiplied with the fixed multiplier, the amount comes to Rs.29,16,000/- [Rs. 1,62,000 X 18]. To this amount, as per the Pranay Sethi's decision (2 supra) , an

¶113

2017 ACJ 2700

¶114

¶115

amount of Rs.15,000/is allowed towards funeral expenses, Rs. 15,000/towards loss of estate and Rs.40,000/towards consortium. Then, the total amount comes to Rs.29,86,000/[Rs.29,16,000 + Rs. 15,000 + Rs. 15,000/- + Rs.40,000/-]. 26. As the offending vehicle lorn/ bearing No.KA 01 AA 5960 is covered by a valid insurance policy, which indemnify^the vehicle owner, driver and third party in accident claim, which was admittedly in force by the date of accident, the Tribunal rightly holds that the Respondent Nos.l and 2 arejointly and severally liable to pay the above awarded compensation to the petitioners.

¶116

In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.2928 of 2017 is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs. 16,83,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Eighty Three Thousand only) to Rs.29,86,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only), with interest @9 % per annum with costs, from the date of petition till the date of realization against Respondents Nos.l and 2. The S'"** petitioner is entitled to receive the enhanced compensation of Rs.13,03,000/- and she is permitted to withdraw the same with interest accrued thereon. The petitioners/claimants are directed to pay the deficit court fee before the Tribunal forthwith. The 2^^ Respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of this judgment^before

¶117

r ^

¶118

¶119

the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall proceed to pay the^amount in the

¶120

aforesaid terms, adjusting the amount, if any, already paid.

¶121

In the result, the M.a.C.M.A.No.318 of 2018 is dismissed.

¶122

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶123

Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

// SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-lll Additional District Judge, Rajampet, YSR Kadapa District. (With^records)

¶128

One CC to Sri Surepalli Madhava Rao, Advocate [OPUC]

¶129

One CC to Sri Vuppalapati Srinivasa Raju, Advocate^[OPUC]

¶130

The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of Andhra^Pradesh at Amaravati.

¶131

Three CD Copies

¶132

BSV

¶133

Vna

¶134

Note:(X) Since the modification is ordered in the Judgment,^dated21-11- 2024 in MACMA No.2928 of 2017, as per the Court Order dated 18-092025 made in I.A No.1 of 2025 in MACMA No.2928 of 2017,^theDecreeis also modified accordingly.

¶135

Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶136

i'.v '•

¶137

HIGH COURT DATED:21/11/2024 18/09/2025

¶138

(AMENDED)

¶139

COMMON JUDGMENT AND DECREE

¶140

MACMA.NOs.2928 of 2017 AND 318 of 2018

¶141

m;
* 030CT 2025 ^
Current Section ,5^

¶142

ALLOWING THE MACMA No.2928 OF 2017 WITH COSTS AND

¶143

DISMISSING THE MACMA No.318 OF 2018 WITHOUT COSTS

¶144

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶145

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER , TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶146

PRESENT

¶147

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS

¶148

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2928 OF 2017

¶149

Between:

¶150

Ekabattula @ Akkabottla Sambaiah (Died), S/o.Veerachari, aged about 50 years, Occ:Carpenter, R/o.Prabhalaveedu Village, B.Kodur Mandal, Kadapa District.

¶151

Ekabattula @ Akkabottla Anuradha (Died), W/o.Sambaiah, aged about 45 years, Occ:Housewife, R/o.Prabhalaveedu Village, B.Kodur Mandal, Kadapa District.

¶152

(2"'* Petitioner died on 25.10.2024 and her LR is already^onRecord as Petitioner No.3 as per Court Order, dated 20.11.2024^inMemo USR.No. 105434/2024)

¶153

Ekabattula @ Akkabottla Vasundhara, D/o.Sambaiah, aged about 19 years, Occ;Student, being Minor, rep. by her natural guardianand father Ekabattula @ Akkabottla Sambaiah, 1 St appellant herein. R/o.Prabhalaveedu Village, B.Kodur Mandal, Kadapa District. (Petitioner No.3 is declared as Major, vide Court Order dated 19.09.2024 in USR.No.36055/2018)

¶154

...Appellants/Petitioners

¶155

AND

¶156

K.Bhupal Reddy, S/o.Balaswamy Reddy, aged major.^Owneroflorry MP/KA01-AA-5960, R/o.No.13, 4*^ Main, N.T.Peta, Bangalore, Karnataka State.

¶157

National Insurance Company Ltd., rep. by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Kurnool, Kurnool District, A.P. ...Respondents/Respondents

¶158

Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, praying that the High Court may be pleased to allow the appeal and modify^{theAwarddated} 24.08.2017 passed in M.V.O.P.No.759 of 2011 on the^{fileofMotorAccident} Claims Tribunal-cum-lll Additional District Judge, Rajampet, by difference amount of the compensation by Rs.3,17,000/- i.e. from Rs.16,83,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.20,00,000/- as asked for in the claim petition with interest at 12% p.a. on the sum of Rs.3,17,000/-^{fromthedateofthe} petition till the date of payment or deposit.

¶159

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and material papers in the petition and upon hearing arguments of Sri Surepalli Madhava Rao, Advocate for Appellants, and of Sri M.Sravan Kumar, Advocate representing Sri Vuppalapati Srinivasa Raju, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶160

THIS COURT DOTH ORDER AND DECREE:

¶161

That the MACMA be and the same hereby is allowed;

¶162

That the compensation be and hereby is enhanced from Rs.16,83,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Eighty Three Thousand only) to Rs.29,86,000/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs Eighty^SixThousand Only), with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization against Respondents Nos.1 and 2;

¶163

♦

¶164

That the 3 rd petitioner by name Ekabattula @ Akkabottia Vasundhara, D/o. Sambaiah, resident of Prabhalaveedu Village, B.Kodur Mandal of Kadapa District, be and hereby is^entitledto receive the enhanced compensation of Rs.13,03,000/-^andsheis permitted to withdraw the same with interest accrued thereon;

¶165

That the petitioners/ciaimants be and hereby are directed to pay the deficit Court Fee forthwith before the Tribunal forthwith;

¶166

That the 2 nd Respondent-Insurance Company be and hereby is directed to deposit the compensation amount within^{twomonthsfrom} the date of this Judgment before the Tribunal;

¶167

That the Tribunal be and hereby is directed to proceed to pay the amount in the aforesaid terms, adjusting the amount, if any, already paid; and

¶168

That the Appellants be and hereby are entitled to an^{amountofRs.115/-} (Rupees One Hundred and Fifteen only) towards costs of the appeal to be paid by the respondents.

¶169

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

¶170

MAGMA N0.2928 OF 2017

¶171

Appellants( )Costs

¶172

	Rs.	Ps.
Stamps for Vakalatnama	05	00
Stamps used for the Memo	10	00
Stamps for Judgment of the Trial Court	2	00
Stamps for decree of Trial Court	4	00
Value of Copy Stamp paper used for enclosures (17x2/-)	34	00
Advocate’s fee on Rupees (not certified)
Batta and Postage	60	00
Translation and Printing charge	00	00
Total:	115	00

¶173

(The Claimants/appellants are entitled to an amount^{ofRs.115/-(Rupees} One Hundred and Fifteen only) towards costs of the^{Appealtobepaidby} the respondents.)

¶174

S6I- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-lll Additional District Judge, Rajampet, YSR Kadapa District.

¶179

2. Three CD Copies

¶180

Vna

¶181

Note:(X) Since the modification is ordered in the Judgment,^dated21-11- 2024 in MACMA No.2928 of 2017, as per the Court Order^dated18-09- 2025 made in I.A No.1 of 2025 in MACMA No.2928 of 2017,^theDecreeis also modified accordingly.

¶182

Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶183

HIGH COURT

¶184

DATED:21/11/2024 18/09/2025

¶185

(AMENDED)

¶186

DECREE

¶187

MACMA.N0.2928 of 2017