The Ap State Road Transport Corporation Vs Garikapati Nageswara Rao

Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the Judgment and Decree dated 29.11.2011 passed in MVOP No.390 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Add itional District Judge-cum-Judge, Family Court, Guntur, Guntur District.

¶13

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 Sanisetti Venkateswarlu,

¶14

' (Standing Counsel for APSRTC), Advocate for Appellant,^andof M/s.CKR Associates, Advocate for Respondent.

¶15

THIS COURT DOTH ORDER AND DECREE;

¶16

That the Appeal be and the same hereby is dismissed;

¶17

That the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Rs.4,86,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum be and hereby is modified and that is enhanced to Rs.5,22,000/-^with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization:

¶18

That time for deposit of balance compensation amount be and hereby is fixed two months;

¶19

That on deposit, the claimant be and hereby is entitled^{towithdrawthe} amount at once;

¶20

That the claimant be and hereby is liable to pay the^{Courtfeeforthe} enhanced part of the compensation, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal; and

¶21

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

¶22

Sd/- M PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

r.

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To

The Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cumAdditional District Judge-cum-Judge, Family Court, Guntur, Guntur District.

¶28

2. Two CD Copies

¶29

HIGH COURT AHHS.J DATED:14/08/2025

¶30

decree

¶31

IMACIWA no. 4201 OF 2012

¶32

^=5? ANDH^%
= 10 SEP 2025 m,
^ Current Section ^
^SSPATCV^'

¶33

DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

’ f ■ ' 3

APHC010447892012

HSH

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH atamaravati

¶38

THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶39

^
oo

¶40

PRESENT

¶41

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA lyiQJOR ACCIDENT CIVIL Migrr. . APPEAL NO: 4?01 qf 2019

¶42

Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and Decree dated 29. 11.2011 passed in MVOP No.390 of 2011 on he file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Addi tional District Judge-cum-Judge, Family Court, Guntur, Guntur District.

¶43

Between:

¶44

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation rep by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad Hyderabad M.M.C.

¶45

...Appellant/Respondent

¶46

AND

¶47

Garikapati Nageswara Rao, S/o.Alluraiah, aged about 36 years, R/o.Ratnagiri Nagar, Guntur DMC, Guntur.

¶48

...Respondent/Petitioner

¶49

jA NO: 3 OF 2012(IVIACMAMP 8002 np 2012)

¶50

Petition filed under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed i in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in Order and Decree dated 29-11-2012

¶51

in MVOP.No.390 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum-Additional District Judge-cum-Judge, Family Court, Guntur pending disposal of the above Appeal.

¶52

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Sanisetty Venkateswarlu, SC for APSRTC Counsel for the Respondent; M/s.CKR Associates The Court made the following:

¶53

1

¶54

APHC010447892012

¶55

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶56

[3520]

¶57

THURSDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶58

PRESENT

¶59

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

¶60

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 4201/2012

¶61

Between:

¶62

1.THE AP STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR O/O.MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD M.M.C.

¶63

...APPELLANT

¶64

AND

¶65

1.GARIKAPATI NAGESWARA RAO, S/o.Alluraiah R/o.Ratnagiri NAgar, Gunru, guntur D.M.C.

¶66

...RESPONDENT

¶67

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶68

1.SANISETTY VENKATESWARLU SC For APSRTC

¶69

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶70

1.CKR ASSOCIATES

¶71

The Court made the following:

¶72

2

¶73

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA iyi.A.C.IVI.A.No.4201 nf 7ni ■>

¶74

JUDGMENT

¶75

Respondents in M.V.O.P.No.390 of 2011 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunalcum-Additional District Judge-cum-Judge, Family Court, Guntur (for short -the learned MACT"), feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2011 filed the present appeal. Under the impugned award, against a claim made by the claimant for Rs.3,00,000/-, the learned MACT awarded compensation of Rs.4,86,500/- for the injuries sustained by him. 2. For the sake of convenience the parties will be hereinafter referred to as the claimant and the respondent as and how they are arrayed before the learned MACT.

¶76

Case of the claimant-

¶77

On 23.02.2011, when the claimant was proceeding on a motorcycle near Cumbum Bus Stand Centre in Markapur Town, A.P.S.R.T.C Bus bearing AP 28 2 898 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant. Thereby, the claimant fell on the road and the bus tyre ran over his right hand, resulting in amputation at the right hand shoulder joint. The claimant was hospitalized for 20 days and took follow up treatment for about two months as outpatient. The Claimant suffered severe mental agony and suffering disability. Negligent driving

¶78

3

¶79

'S

¶80

of the offending vehicle is the cause for the accident. Hence the claimant is entitled for just and reasonable compensation.

¶81

Claim was resisted by Respondent/ A.P.S.R.T.C disowning negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and attributing negligence to the claimant.

¶82

On the strength of evidence covered by Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-Wound Certificate, Ex.A3-Charge Sheet, Ex.A4-Discharge summary, Ex.A5-Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board, Government General Hospital, Guntur and oral evidence of PW.1-the claimant, P.W.2-the doctor and after referring to the evidence of R.W.1-the driver of the offending vehicle^{learnedMACTfound} that the negligence of the driver of the offending^vehicle is the cause for the accident and that the claimant suffered 75% disability and awarded a compensation Rs.4,86,500/- with the brake up of Rs.4,32,000/-^{undertheheadof} permanent disability, Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.4,500/-towards actual loss of earnings for 45 days at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month with incidental directions as to interest, costs, disbursement^etc.

¶83

Arguments of the appellant:

¶84

6(i). When the claim is made for Rs.3,00,000/-, arriving and granting of compensation at Rs.4,86,500/- is not correct. 6(ii). Negligence of the claimant in riding the motorcycle is ignored. 6(iii). There is no rationality in acceptance of income and disability by the learned MACT.

¶85

4

¶86

Arguments in the appeal:

¶87

For the claimant:

¶88

7(i). Compensation awarded is insufficient. 7(ii). Although the disability is 75%, it shall be taken as 100%. 7(iii). There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned decree and judgment, except for enhancement of the compensation already^awarded.

¶89

7(iv). The income taken at Rs.3,000/- is very low and the compensation should have been awarded under various heads, which the learned MACT has missed. 7(v). There are good grounds to enhance the compensation.

¶90

Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by both sides.

¶91

Now the points that arise for determination in this appeal are;

¶92

Whether the claimant suffered injuries due to the pleaded accident and whether the accident has occurred due to negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing No.AP 28 Z 898 by its driver?

¶93

Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation? If so, to what quantum? And whether the compensation of Rs.4,86,500/- awarded by the learned MACT is just and reasonable or requires any interference? if so to what extent?

¶94

What is the result of the appeal?

¶95

5

¶96

Point No.1:

¶97

The evidence of P.W.1/ the claimant as to negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver when seen along with^{Ex.A1-FIR,Ex.A3-charge} sheet in the light of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles^{Act,1988andRule476of} the A.P. Motor vehicles Rules and with the aid of observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bimla Devi and others vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation^ vide para No. 15, the negligence^{ofthedriverofthe} offending vehicle found fit to be accepted.

¶98

The evidence of R.W.1, the driver of the offending^{vehicle,indicatesthata} of his case was registered against him and the same was filed by the^date evidence.

¶99

The attribution of the drunken state of the claimant, spoken by R.W.1, was denied during cross-examination and there is no other^evidence. 13. It is pertinent to note that there is reference to^{Section163-AoftheMotor} Vehicles Act, 1988 in the claim petition. However,^{bothpartiesadducedevidence} on negligence also. Since, by their conduct and assertions,^{thepartiesinvitedthe} findings on the issue of negligence, the learned MACT^{hasansweredtheissue} relating to the negligence in favour of the claimant^{andagainsttherespondent} while mentioning that in terms of Section 163-A of^{theMotorVehiclesAct;there}

¶100

^ 2009 Supreme (AP) 136; 2010 (2) AID 403; 2009 (3)^ALT260

¶101

6

¶102

is no need to prove the negligence. The findings of^{learnedMACTfoundfitfor} concurrence on negligence.

¶103

Upon perusal of the evidence and reasons stated above, the point touching the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is answered against the respondent and in favour of the claimant confirming the findings of the learned MACT.

¶104

Point No.2:

¶105

The claimant suffered injuries in the accident, and^thesame is not in dispute. However, the evidence of claimant as P.W.1 and the evidence of P.W.2-Dr. M. Prasanth and the other medical records i.e. Ex.A2-Wound Certificate, Ex.A4-Discharge Summary, Ex.A5-Disability Certificate and Ex.XICase sheet are vindicating the stand of the claimant that he suffered injuries due to the accident. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for compensation.

¶106

it is found relevant to note the guidance of Hon’ble Supreme Court as to quantifying the compensation before analyzing the evidence.

¶107

Precedential Guidance:

¶108

A reference to parameters, for quantifying the compensation^undervarious heads, addressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court is found necessary, to have standard base in the process of quantifying the compensation, to which the claimant is entitled.

¶109

7

¶110

(i) With regard to awarding just and reasonable quantum of compensation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Baby Sakshi^{Greolavs.Manzoor} Ahmad Simon and Anr.^, arising out of SLP(c).No. 10996 of 2018 on 11.12.2024, considered the scope and powers of the Tribunal in awarding just and compensation within the meaning of Act, after marshaling entire case law, more particularly with reference to the earlier observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court made in Kajal V. Jagadish Chand and Ors.^,^{referredtovarious} heads under which, compensation can be awarded, in injuries cases vide

¶111

paragraph No.52, the heads are as follows:-

¶112

S. No.	Head		Amount (In f)
1.	Medicines and Medical Treatment		xxxxx
2.	Loss of Earning Capacity due to Disability		xxxxx
3.	Pain and Suffering		xxxxx
4.	Future Treatment		xxxxx
5.	Attendant Charges		xxxxx
6.	Loss of Amenities of Life		xxxxx
7.	Loss of Future Prospect		xxxxx
8.	Special Education Expenditure		xxxxx
9.	Conveyance and Special Diet		xxxxx
10,	Loss of Marriage Prospects		xxxxxx
	Total	Rs.	xxxxxx

¶113

(ii). Hon’ble Apex Court in Yadava Kumar Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and Ann,vide para No. 10, by referring to Sunil Kumar Vs. Ram Singh Gauc^,as to application of multiplier method in case of injuries while calculating loss of future earnings, in para 16 referring to

¶114

^2025 AIAR (Civil) 1

¶115

^2020 (04) see 413 ‘'20io(io)see34i

^2007 (14) see 61

8

%v

Hardeo Kaur Vs. Rajasthan State Transport Corporation^, as to fixing of quantum of compensation with liberal approach, valuing the life and limb of individual in generous scale, in para 17 observed that

¶120

"The High Court and the Tribunal must realize that there is a distinction between compensation and damage. The expression compensation may include a claim for damage but compensation is more comprehensive. Normally damages are given for an injury which is suffered, whereas compensation stands on a slightly higher footing. It is given for the atonement of injury caused and the intention behind grant of compensation is to put back the injured party as far as possible in the same position, as if the injury has not taken place, by way of grant of pecuniary relief Thus, in the matter of computation of compensation, the approach will be slightly more broad based than what is done in the matter of assessment of damages. At the same time it is true that there cannot be any rigid or mathematical precision in the matter of determination of compensation."

¶121

(iii). In Rajkumar Vs. AJay Kumar and Another^, the Hon’ble Apex Court summarized principles to be followed in the process of quantifying the compensation after referring to socio economic and practical aspects from which, the claimants come and the practical difficulties, the parties may face in the process of getting disability assessed and getting all certificates from either the Doctors, who treated, or from the medical boards etc. In para 19, it is observed as follows:

¶122

We may now summarise the principles discussed above:

¶123

(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.

¶124

® 1992(2) see 567 ^2011 (l)see 343

¶125

9

¶126

(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference^tothewhole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage^{of lossof} earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal^onthebasisof evidence, concludes that the percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as the percentage of permanent disability). (Hi) The doctor who treated an injured claimant or^{whoexaminedhim} subseguently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only In regard to the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety, (iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education^andother factors.

¶127

(iv)

¶128

in Sidram vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd.^{and Anr.} 8

¶129

vide para No.40, the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to the general principles relating to compensation in injury cases and assessment of future loss of earning due to permanent disability by referring to Rajkumar’s case, and also various heads under which compensation can be awarded to a^{victimofamotorvehicle} accident.

¶130

(V) In Sidram’s case, reference is made to a case in R.D. Hattangadi V. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd.^. From the observations made therein, it can be understood that while fixing amount of compensation in cases of accident, it

¶131

" 2023 (3) see 439

¶132

® 1995 (1) see 551

¶133

10

¶134

involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But all these elements have to be viewed with objective standards. In assessing damages, the Court must exclude all considerations of matter which rest in awarding speculation or fancy, though conjecture to some extent is inevitable.

¶135

Analysis of Evidence:

¶136

Ex.A2-Wound Certificate is reflecting the crush injury of right upper limb. Ex.A4-Discharge summary is indicating admission of the claimant to the Hospital on 24.02.2011, date of surgery on 24.02.2011 and 31.03.2011 and discharge on 09.04.2011. Ex.AS-Disability certificate is indicating nature of disability and the disability at 75%. Details mentioned in the disability^{certificateareasfollows:}

¶137

Name of the candidate : G. Nageswara Rao Father’s Name : Alluraiah Sex(Male / Female) : Male Approximate Age : 35 Identification Marks : 1) A mole on the right hand shoulder Nature of Disability Mild : Less than 40% and diability. Moderate : 40% and above Sevare : 75%) and above Prefound : 100%o

¶138

The case sheet-Ex.XI indicates the nature of investigation^doneandthe

¶139

treatnient given etc.

¶140

The evidence of P.W.2 / Dr.M. Prasanth is as follows:

¶141

11

¶142

Chief examination:

¶143

I am working as Professor of Orthopedic GGH, Guntur since 2003. P. W. 1 was

¶144

admitted in the hospital on 24.02.2011 with the following injuries. 1. Crush injury of the right arm and fore-arm with multiple fractures. I have conducted operation on 24.02.2011 on 31.03.2011. The patient was disability is permanent is partial to 75%. I am one of the members of the medical discharged on 09.04.2011. There is amputation to the right arm above elbow, the board and issued disability certificate. Ex.-A4 is the discharge summary and Ex.A5 is the disability certificate issued by Medical Board (already marked). Ex.XI is the case sheet

¶145

Cross-examination by PMB Advocate for respondent:

¶146

It Is not true to suggest that the disability is mentioned by me is excessive. The treatment is free of cost Re-examination: -Nil

¶147

¶148

From the evidence the following aspects are clear;

¶149

(i) The claimant suffered a crush injury

¶150

(ii) The claimant’s right upper limb above the elbow was amputated,

¶151

(iii) The disability is permanent, partial, to the extent of 75%

¶152

(iv) The disability certificate was issued by the Medical^Board.

¶153

As per the evidence of the claimant, he was working^{asadriverofthe}

¶154

tractor. The income of the claimant during the year 2011, with reference to socio economic circumstances of the year and also minimum wages etc., although there is no proof as to status of the claimant as a driver, considering his age around ‘35’ years, his income can be taken notionally at Rs.3,000/- per month as rightly adopted by the learned MACT. Rs.3,000/- per month even if considered as excessive, the same can be considered as inclusive of future prospects. Then the annual income comes to Rs.36,000/-. Multiplier applicable is ‘16’. Therefore, the compensation under the head of loss of earning capacity due to disability at

¶155

€1'

¶156

12

¶157

Rs.4,32,000/- found fit for confirmation. No medical bills are produced, however notionally Rs.5,000/is awarded under the head of medical expenditure. However, with regard to pain and suffering, loss of amenities, transportation, expenditure, attendant charges etc., there is need to award reasonable compensation, in tune with the precedential guidance^{referredabove.} 23. In the light of the precedential guidance and in view^{ofthereasonsand} evidence referred above, the entitlement of the claimant for reasonable compensation under various heads as contemplated by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in comparison to the compensation awarded by the learned MACT is found as

¶158

follows;

¶159

SI. No.	Head	Granted by the learned MACT	Fixed by this Appellate Court
1.	Loss of earning capacity due to disability	Rs.4,32,000/-	Rs.4,32,000/-
2.	Loss of earnings during the period of treatment etc.	Rs.4,500/-	Rs.10,000/-
3.	Pain and suffering	Rs.50,000/-	Rs.50,000/
4.	Loss of amenities	-Nil-	Rs.5,000/
5.	Transportation	-Nil-	Rs.5,000/
6.	Attendant charges	-Nil-	Rs.5,000/
7.	Extra nourishment	-Nil-	Rs.10,000/
8.	Medical expenditure	-Nil-	Rs.5,000/
	Total:	Rs.4,86,500 /-	Rs.5,22,000/

¶160

13

¶161

For the reasone aforesaid and in view of the discussion made above, the point framed is answered in favour of the claimant concluding that the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,22,000/- and the impugned order and decree dated 29.11.2011 passed by the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.390 of 2011 require modification accordingly.

¶162

Awarding more compensation than what claimed and awarding compensation to the claimant even in the absence of any appeal or cross objections by the claimant require examination.

¶163

Enhancement of compensation in the absence of appeal:

¶164

26(i). Whether the compensation can be enhanced in the absence of an appeal or cross appeal by the claimant. The legal position as to powers of the Appellate Court particularly while dealing with an appeal in^{termsofSection173ofthe} Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, where the award passed by^{thelearnedMACTunder} challenge at the instance of the Insurance Company (Respondents) and bar or prohibition if any to enhance the quantum of compensation and awarding just and reasonable compensation, even in the absence of any appeal or, cross objections was considered by the Division Bench of^{thisCourtinacasebetween} 10 National Insurance Company Limited vs. E. Suseelamma^andothers in M.A.C.M.A. No.945 of 2013, while answering point No.3 framed therein vide. para 50 of the judgment, which reads as follows:

¶165

10 2023 see Online AP 1725

¶166

14

¶167

In our considered view, the claimant/respondents^areentitled for just compensation and if on the face of the award^oreveninthe light of the evidence on record, and keeping in view the settled legal position regarding the claimants being entitled to just compensation and it also being the statutory duty of the Court/Tribunal to award just compensation, this Court in the exercise of the appellate powers can enhance the amount of compensation even in the absence of appeal or cross-objection by the claimants.

¶168

26(ii). Observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. E. Suseelamma and others (10 supra) case are in compliance with the observations of Hon’ble Apex Court in Surekha and

¶169

Others vs. Santosh and Others^\

¶170

26(iii). In Surekha and Others vs. Santosh and Others (11 supra) case, in Civil Appeal No.476 of 2020 vide judgment dated 21.01.2020, three judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “it is well stated that in the matter of Insurance claim compensation in reference to the motor accident, the Court should not take hyper technical approach and ensure that just compensation is awarded to the affected person or the claimants”. While addressing a case where the High Court has declined to grant enhancement on the ground that the claimants fail to file cross appeal above observations^aremade.

¶171

(2021) 16 see 467

¶172

15

¶173

Granting of more compensation than what claimed, if the claimant is

¶174

otherwise entitled:-

¶175

The legal position with regard to awarding more compensation^thanwhat claimed has been considered and settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court holding that there is no bar for awarding more compensation^{thanwhatisclaimed.} For the said preposition of law, this Court finds it proper to refer the following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court made in;

¶176

(1) Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others^^, at para 21 of the

¶177

judgment, that-

¶178

there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of^{theTribunal/Courtis} to award “just" compensation, which is reasonable on^{thebasisofevidence} produced on record."

¶179

(2) Kajal Vs. Jagadish Chand and Ors. 13 at para 33 of the Judgment, as

¶180

follows:-

¶181

“33. We are aware that the amount awarded by us is^{morethantheamount} claimed. However, it is well settled law that in the^{motoraccidentclaim} petitions, the Court must award the just compensation and, in case, the just compensation is more than the amount claimed, that^mustbe awarded especially where the claimant is a minor.’’

¶182

(3) Ramla and Others Vs. National Insurance Company^Limitedand

¶183

Others at para 5 of the judgment, as follows:-

¶184

12 (2003) 2 see 274

¶185

13 2020(04) see 413

¶186

14 (2019) 2 see 192

¶187

16

¶188

“5. Though the claimants had claimed a total compensation of Rs 25,00,000 in their claim petition filed before the Tribunal, we feel that the compensation which the claimants are entitled to is higher than the same as mentioned supra. There is no restriction that the Court cannot award compensation exceeding the claimed amount, since the function of the Tribunal or Court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to award “just compensation”. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. A “just compensation” is one which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. It cannot be said to have become time-barred. Further, there is no need for a new cause of action to claim an enhanced amount. The courts are duty-bound to award just compensation. ”

¶189

Point No.3:

¶190

For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the findings and conclusions drawn under point Nos.1 and 2, point No.3 is answered as follows:

¶191

In the result,

¶192

(i) The appeal is dismissed.

¶193

(ii) The compensation awarded by the learned MACT at Rs.4.86,500/with interest at the rate of 6% per annum is modified and enhanced to Rs.5,22,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶194