Allowed¶5

Shaik Jamal Sahib & 2 Ors. v. a.M.Murugesan & Anr.

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Jul 2025MACMA/1144/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

M.A.C.M.A. No.1144 of 2006, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati; I.A.No.1 of 2025 mention petition ('for being mentioned'); clarification of interest on enhanced motor-accident compensation (Tribunal award Rs.1,92,000/- enhanced to Rs.3,49,600/- with proportionate costs); interest at same rate as granted by the Tribunal on the principal; interest from date of petition till date of realization; B.S.Bhanumathi, J; order dated 07.05.2026.

What did the court decide?

Clarification that the compensation enhanced in the appeal (Rs.3,49,600/-) shall carry interest at the same rate as granted by the Tribunal on the principal awarded (Rs.1,92,000/-), from the date of the petition till the date of realization; the mention petition I.A.No.1 of 2025 is ordered accordingly. ¶5

Shaik Jamal Sahib & 2 Ors. Vs a.M.Murugesan & Anr. — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶5

Issue for consideration

Whether interest is payable on the principal amount of compensation enhanced in the appeal (from Rs.1,92,000/- to Rs.3,49,600/-), which was neither expressly mentioned nor expressly declined in the appellate judgment, and on what terms.

¶5

Court's answer

The absence of any express statement in the appellate judgment that the enhanced principal would carry interest at the same rate as was allowed by the Tribunal on the principal amount of compensation awarded by it was an inadvertent omission.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

It is made clear that the compensation enhanced in the appeal shall carry the same interest as was granted by the Tribunal, i.e., at the same rate as allowed by the Tribunal on the principal amount of compensation awarded by it.

¶5

Key takeaways

Interest on the enhanced compensation runs from the date of the petition till the date of realization.ratio¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Andhra Pradesh (Amaravati), M.A.C.M.A.No.1144 of 2006 — I.A.No.1 of 2025 ('for being mentioned'), order dated 07.05.2026 by B.S.Bhanumathi, J. The earlier appellate judgment enhanced motor accident compensation from Rs.1,92,000/- to Rs.3,49,600/- with proportionate costs but did not expressly state whether the enhanced principal carried interest. On a mention petition moved by the appellants' counsel (no objection from the other side), the Court held the silence to be an inadvertent omission and clarified that the enhanced compensation carries interest at the same rate as was allowed by the Tribunal on the principal amount awarded by it, from the date of the petition till the date of realization. Petition ordered.

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶3

MAIN CASE No: M.A.C.M.A.No.1144 of 2006

¶4

PROCEEDING SHEET

¶5

Sl. No	Date	ORDER
07	07.05.2026	BSB,J I.A.No.1 of 2025
		This petition is filed under the caption ‘for being mentioned’ at request of the learned counsel for the appellants / petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that while enhancing the amount of compensation from Rs.1,92,000/- to Rs.3,49,600/- with proportionate costs, there was no express mention about the interest payable on the principal amount of compensation enhanced, nor was it declined expressly, however, the Tribunal entertains a doubt and therefore, it is required to clarify about the same. No objection is raised from the other side. It is an inadvertent omission in expressly stating that the principal amount of compensation enhanced shall carry the interest at the same rate as was allowed by the Tribunal on the principal amount of compensation awarded by it. Accordingly, it is made clear that the amount of compensation enhanced in the appeal shall carry the same amount of interest as was granted by the Tribunal, from the date of the petition till the date of realization. Accordingly, the petition is ordered.
		__________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI,J NSM

Shaik Jamal Sahib & 2 Ors. v. a.M.Murugesan & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Jamal Sahib & 2 Ors. v. a.M.Murugesan & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Avgk Prasad Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

C Jayasankara Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Yadavalli Sydulu Vs the Government of Andhra Pradesh

Akula Lakshmi Sujatha Vs Shaik Rahamatullah & Anr.

K. Mohan Reddy Vs B. Seenaiah and Co. and Another

Yanamala Raghuramaiah Vs Chalavadi Mallikarjuna Rao and Another