Mulagada Rama Lakshmi Vs SeelaEswara Rao

SEELAESWARA RAO, S/O. SHANKAR RAO, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, BOLERO VEHICLE DRIVER, R/O. CHAKALIBELGAM, SAI NAGAR COLONY, KOTHABHEEMASINGI VILLAGE, JAMI MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.

¶19

KALAKATI LAZAR, S/O. YERANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, BOLERO VEHICLE OWNER, R/O. BAPIST PETA, MANGALAGIRI,

¶20

2

¶21

VS,J MAMCMA No.106 of 2022

¶22

GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶23

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶24

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶25

Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toAggrieved by the order of he court of Principal District Judge CUM Chairman, Motor accident claims tribunal, Vizianagaram District passed in M.V.O.P.No. 294/2017 dated 11.12.2019,

¶26

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶27

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to condone the delay of 623 days in filing the Appeal against the Judgment and Decree passed in the Court of the Judge: Principal District Judge CUM Chairman, Motor accident claims tribunal, Vizianagaram passed in M.V.O.P.No. 294/2017 dated 11.12.2019and pass

¶28

IA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶29

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to declare the petitioners 2 to 4 as majors in the 0.P and 2nd, 3rd and Lith appellants in the appeal as major by discharging my guardianship and permit them to file the appeal in individual capacity against the Judgment and Decree passed in the Court of the Judge: Principal District Judge CUM Chairman, Motor accident claims tribunal, Vizianagaram passed in M.V.O.P.No. 294/2017 dated 11.12.2019 pass

¶30

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

¶31

1.KANAKALA DEVI PRASANNAKUMAR

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶33

1.VENKATESWARLU PALADUGU

¶34

¶35

The Court made the following:

¶36

3

¶37

VS,J MAMCMA No.106 of 2022

¶38

JUDGMENT:

¶39

The present civil miscellaneous appeal, under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, arises out of the order and decree dated 11.12.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.294 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Vizianagaram. By the said order, the Tribunal has partly allowed the said claim petition, awarding a compensation of Rs.17,12,520/- to the petitioners/claimants, as against the claim of Rs.40,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased Mulagada Srinivasa Rao in a motor accident that occurred on 12.04.2016.

¶40

For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶41

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:

¶42

a) The petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioners No.2 to 4 are the children, petitioner No.5 is the father, petitioner No.6 is the mother, petitioner No.7 is the son of petitioner No.5 is son of the petitioner and brother of the deceased and he was added as L.R. of the deceased petitioner No.5.

¶43

b) On 12.04.2016, the deceased started at his house on his Honda Activa motorcycle and proceeding in a slow manner by following traffic rules towards Chillapeta village to attend the duty and when he reached near Aruna Jute Mills road junction at about 6.30 hours, respondent No.1 drove the Bolero vehicle bearing No.AP 07 TE 6308 coming from Vizianagaram and proceeding

¶44

4

¶45

VS,J MAMCMA No.106 of 2022

¶46

towards Visakhapatnam in a rash and negligent manner with high speed dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, due to which, the deceased fell down and sustained injury on the back side of his head and on other vital parts of the body. Immediately, the deceased was taken to the Government Hospital, Vizianagaram for treatment and later shifted to Seven Hills Hospital, Visakhapatnam for better treatment, where he died on 13.04.2016 while undergoing treatment. Thereafter, postmortem examination was conducted at K.G.Hospital, Visakhapatnam. A case was registered in Crime No.69 of 2016 under Section 304-IPC against respondent No.1.

¶47

c) It is contended by the petitioners/claimants that the deceased was aged about 45 years and he was quite hale and healthy at the time of accident and working in Engineering Department, Indian Railways and was earnings Rs.22,362/- per month, but due to his sudden demise, the petitioners became destitute and the petitioners have spent huge amounts for transport, funeral and other incidental expenses. Therefore, they sought compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- from the respondents.

¶48

Before the Tribunal, respondents No.1 and 2 remained ex parte .

¶49

Respondent No.3/insurer filed counter and denied the averments of the petition and submitted that the offending vehicle is insured with this respondent. It is further submitted the Station House Officer, Vizianagaram Rural Police Station registered a case in Crime No.69 of 2016 under Section 304-A of IPC, respondent No.2 has not furnished the particulars of the driving

¶50

5

¶51

VS,J MAMCMA No.106 of 2022

¶52

license of respondent No.1. Form No.54 accident Information Report in Crime No.69 of 2016 shows that respondent No.1 is not having valid driving license at the time of accident, hence there is clear violation of terms and conditions of the policy. It is further contended that the deceased drove his Honda Activa bike and the registered owner of the vehicle is Mulagada Ramalakshmi, which is having temporary registration AP 35 TSTR 6062 valid from 24.11.2014 to 23.12.2014 and that she paid penalty for using the unregistered vehicle by the unlicensed driver and hence respondent No.3 is not liable to pay compensation. The investigation conducted by the police shows that the deceased and respondent No.1 have no valid driving license at the time of accident. The interest and compensation claimed under various heads are exorbitant. The insurer, therefore, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

¶53

06. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for

¶54

trial:

¶55

“1. Whether Seela Eswara Rao/1^st respondent drove the Bolero/AP 07 TE 6803 in rash and negligent manner on 12.04.2016 at about 5.30 hours near Aruna Jute Mill, Vizianagaram and resulted in death of deceased/Mulagada Srinivasa Rao?

¶56

2. Whether the deceased/Mulagada Srinivasa Rao is aged 45 years and earning Rs.22,362/- per month by working as an employee as on 12.04.2016?

¶57

3. Whether Seela Eswara Rao/1^st respondent has valid and effective driving license to drive Bolero/AP 0 TE 6803, if not, whether Kaakoti Lazar/2^nd respondent willfully handed over the vehicle to the 1^st respondent in breach of terms of the policy?

¶58

4. Whether the deceased was having valid and effective driving license to drive Honda Activa Bike as on the date of accident?

¶59

6

¶60

VS,J MAMCMA No.106 of 2022

¶61

5. Whether the Honda Bike/AP 35 TS T/R 5052 is having registration certificate as on12.04.2016?

¶62

6. Whether the petitioners are legal representatives of the deceased/Mulagada Srinivasa Rao, If so? Whether they are entitled for compensation? If so, at what amount and from whom?

¶63

7. To what relief?”

¶64

On behalf of the petitioners/claimants, petitioner No.1 herself was examined as P.W.1 and also examined P.W.2 and P.W.3 and got marked Exs.A1 and A12 and Exs.X1 to X3 were also marked. On behalf of respondent No.3, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Exs.B1 and Exs.X4 and X5 were marked.

¶65

After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition, which reads as follows:

¶66

“In the result, the petition is partly allowed with proportionate costs awarding compensation of Rs.17,12,520/-(Rupees seventeen lakhs twelve thousand five hundred and twenty only) with subsequent interest at 09% per annum from the date of petition i.e. 19.06.2017 till the date of deposit against the respondents.

¶67

The 1^st to 3^rd petitioners and the 6^th petitioner are permitted to withdraw part of their respective share amounts of Rs.2,29,065/-, Rs.1,67,252/-, Rs.1,25,439/- and Rs.83,626/-.

¶68

The 3^rd respondent directed, at the first instance, to deposit Rs.2,29,065/- (Rupees two lakhs twenty nine thousand and sixty five only) with accrued interest and costs being the share of the 1^st petitioner, Rs.1,67,252/(Rupees one lakh sixty seven thousand two hundred and fifty two only) with accrued interest and costs being the share of the 2^nd petitioner, Rs.1,25,439/(Rupees one lakh twenty five thousand four hundred and thirty nine only) being the share of the 3^rd petitioner with accrued and interest and costs and Rs.83,626/- (Rupees eighty three thousand six hundred and twenty six only) with accrued interest and costs being the share of the 6^th petitioner, drawing the Account Payee cheques on the names of 1^st to 3^rd and 6^th petitioners

¶69

7

¶70

VS,J MAMCMA No.106 of 2022

¶71

respectively and file the same before the Tribunal with notice to the 1^st to 3^rd and 6^th petitioners within 30 days from this day and thereafter can recover the same from the 1^st and the 2^nd respondents by filing the Execution Petition. The 1^st to 3^rd and 6^th petitioners shall file their Bank Pass books on that the Pass books and the cheques shall be sent to the Bank, where 1^st to 3^rd and 6^th petitioners have accounts, after due identification.

¶72

In respect of the remaining share amount of 1^st petitioner of Rs.2,29,065/- (Rupees two lakhs twenty nine thousand and sixty five only) with accrued interest and costs, remaining share amount of the 2^nd petitioner of Rs.1,67,252/- (Rupees one lakh sixty seven thousand two hundred and fifty two only) each with accrued interest and costs, Rs.1,25,439/- (Rupees one lakh twenty five thousand four hundred and thirty nine only) being the share of the 3^rd petitioner with accrued and interest and costs and the remaining share amount of the 6^th petitioner of Rs.83,626/- (Rupees eighty three thousand six hundred and twenty six only) with accrued interest and costs, the 3^rd respondent, at the first instance, is directed to take Fixed Deposit Receipt for a period of three years and deposit the same before the Tribunal within 30 days and then recover the same from the 1^st and 2^nd respondents. The 1^st to 3^rd and 6^th petitioners are entitled to the monthly interest on their respective deposited amounts on filing their Savings Bank Account particulars. The interest will be credited monthly in the individual account of the 1^st to 3^rd and 6^th petitioners and they can withdraw the interest amount for their maintenance. The 3^rd respondent or any other shall not cancel nor encash the Fixed Deposit Receipt under any circumstances without prior orders of the Tribunal.

¶73

In respect of the entire share amount of the 4^th petitioner of Rs.3,34,504/(Rupees three lakhs thirty four thousand five hundred and four only) with accrued interest and cost, the 3^rd respondent, at the first instance, is directed to take Fixed Deposit Receipt till the 4^th petitioner attains majority, and deposit the same before the Tribunal within 30 days and then recover the same from the 1^st and 2^nd respondents. The 1^st petitioner being the mother of the minor 4^th petitioner is entitled to the monthly interest on the deposit amount of the 4^th petitioner for the maintenance of the 4^th petitioner.

¶74

In respect of the entire share amount of the 5^th petitioner of Rs.1,67,252/(Rupees one lakh sixty seven thousand two hundred and fifty two only) with accrued interest and cost, the 3^rd respondent, at the first instance, is directed to take Fixed Deposit Receipt for a period of three years and deposit the same before the Tribunal within 30 days and then recover the same from the 1^st and 2^nd respondents. The legal heirs of the deceased 5^th petitioner, including the 7^th respondents, are entitled to equal shares in the share amount awarded to the 5^th petitioner as per Law.”

¶75

8

¶76

VS,J MAMCMA No.106 of 2022

¶77

Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appellants/claimants preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal, seeking enhancement of the compensation on the ground that the Tribunal erred in considering the net income of the deceased instead of the gross income. It is further contended that the Tribunal erred in awarding future prospects at 30% by taking the net salary into consideration, whereas the same ought to have been calculated on the basis of the gross salary of the deceased.

¶78

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶79

Heard Mr.K.Devi Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners and Mr.Paladugu Venkateswarlu, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3/insurance company .

¶80

Now the point for consideration is:

¶81

“ Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable, or requires enhancement in this appeal; if so, to what extent?”

¶82

POINT :

¶83

There is no dispute with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and in the absence of any challenge thereto, the said finding, which is well-founded on the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner, needs no interference. In view of the contentions raised in the

¶84

9

¶85

VS,J MAMCMA No.106 of 2022

¶86

present appeal, the only issue that requires consideration is with respect to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶87

Now coming to the quantum, the Tribunal considering the evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A6/Appointment order issued by DRM to the deceased as Track Man/Gangman and Ex.X2/Payslip has taken the monthly net salary of the deceased as Rs.14,602/- taken into account and accordingly, calculated the annual net salary of the deceased as Rs.1,75,224/- (Rs.14,602/- X 12). Since there are six dependents, 1/4^th of the annual income was deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and the residue was Rs.1,31,418/- (Rs.1,75,224 X ¼). As the age of the deceased was 45 years as on the date of the accident as per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation¹ , applied the appropriate multiplier i.e., 14‟ and thereby, arrived at the loss of dependency at Rs.18,39,582/-. Further, following the guidelines laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi² , 30% of the income i.e., Rs.5,51,874/- was added towards the future prospects. Further, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium was awarded to the 1^st petitioner and Rs.15,000/- was awarded towards funeral expenses. In total, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.24,46,457/-.

¶88

But, however, the Tribunal held that the deceased was not having valid driving license and that the vehicle i.e., „Honda Activa Bike‟ driven by the deceased was not having registration certificate and was also not insured.

¶89

1 2017 ACJ 2700

¶90

2 2017 ACJ 2700

¶91

10

¶92

VS,J MAMCMA No.106 of 2022

¶93

Hence, the Tribunal held that the deceased also contributed for the said accident and therefore fixed the liability at 70:30 ratio and hence, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.17,12,520/- only.

¶94

However, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Tribunal ought to have considered the gross salary of the deceased but not the net salary, which includes various deductions and it is justifiable only to deduct income tax from the gross salary for the deceased for calculating his gross income. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Diary No.39746 of 2018 dated 23.07.2024, wherein under similar circumstances, relying upon an another judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd. v.

¶95

Nalini and Ors. (Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.4230/2019),

¶96

the Hon‟ble Apex Court held that allowances under the heads of transport allowance, house rent allowance, provident fund loan, provident fund and special allowance ought to be added while considering the basic salary of the victim/deceased to arrive at the dependency factor and also held that omitting to add the components of house rent allowance, flexible benefit plan and Company contribution to provident fund to the basic salary of the deceased while applying the principle of rise in income by future prospects is improper.

¶97

In the present case, the salary particulars of the deceased as per Ex.X2/pay slip, is as follows:

¶98

11

¶99

VS,J MAMCMA No.106 of 2022

¶100

EAST COST RAILWAY/WALTAIR

¶101

Salary slip for March-2016

¶102

EMP No.531008058008 MULAGADA SREENIVASA RAO

¶103

	Earnings	Amount	Deductions	Amount
Desg:TRACK MNTR-IV	Pay DA	9270 11150	PF-SUBB CGIS-C	781 30
PB:PB1(5200- 20200)	TRAN ALL WASH-	1752 90	P-TAX-AP HRENT	200 65
Band	ALL		ELEC	335
Pay:21,900 Grad Pay:1900			OP-PAY OP-DA	323 384
Basic			FBF	100
Pay:9370			LIC-WAT	984
Duty/LV			RI-VZM	25
Days:31 DOI:01-07- 2015			UBCMTD- WAT UBLOAN- WAT	500 4033

¶104

#(Provisional PF BAL AS ON 01/03/2016 GROSS PAY Rs.22,362 GROSS Deductions: 7760 NET PAY:Rs.14,602 )TA MONTHS-)

¶105

Thus, from the above, it is evident that the gross salary of the deceased is Rs.22,362/-. By following the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nalini and Ors. ( referred supra), only professional tax of Rs.200/- can be deducted from the gross salary of the deceased for the purpose of deciding the monthly income of the deceased. Accordingly, the annual gross salary of the deceased would be Rs.22,162/(Rs.22,362 – 200) and the annual income would be Rs.2,65,944/(Rs.22,162/- X 12). Since there are six dependents, 1/4^th of the annual income is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and

¶106

12

¶107

VS,J MAMCMA No.106 of 2022

¶108

the residue is Rs.1,99,458/- (Rs.2,65,944 – Rs.66,486/-). As the age of the deceased was 45 years as on the date of the accident, as per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation³ , the appropriate multiplier for the age group is „14‟, thereby, the loss of dependency is calculated at Rs.27,92,412/(Rs.1,99,458/- X 14). Further, following the guidelines laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi⁴ , 30% of the income is to be added towards the future prospects, which comes to Rs.8,37,723/- (27,92,412 + 30%). On adding the same, the loss of dependency would comes to Rs.36,30,135/- (Rs.27,92,412/- + Rs.8,37,723/-).

¶109

Further, the Tribunal failed to award towards „love and affection‟ to petitioners No.2, 3 and 4, who are the children of the deceased and petitioner No.6 who is mother of the deceased under the head of „filial consortium‟. Therefore, this Court awards Rs.40,000/- each to petitioner Nos.2, 3, 4 under the head of „love and affection‟ and Rs.40,000/- to petitioner No.6 under the head of „loss of filial consortium‟. With regard to other amount granted by the Tribunal under the head of funeral expenses of Rs.15,000/-, the same is just and reasonable and no interference is warranted therewith.

¶110

To sum up, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal and the amounts granted in the present appeal in the light of the computations made above, are as follows:

¶111

3 2017 ACJ 2700

¶112

4 2017 ACJ 2700

¶113

13

¶114

VS,J MAMCMA No.106 of 2022

¶115

Head	Amount granted by the Tribunal	Amount now awarded by this Court
Loss of dependency	Rs.18,39,582/-	Rs.27,92,412/-
Loss of future prospects	Rs.5,51,875/-	Rs.8,37,723/-
Loss of consortium	Rs.40,000/-	Rs.80,000/-
Love and affection	--	Rs.1,20,000/-
Funeral expenses	Rs.15,000/-	Rs.15,000/-
Total	Rs.24,46,457/- (less) 30% towards contributory negligence, comes to Rs.17,12,520/-.	Rs.38,45,135/-

¶116

So far as liability is concerned, it can be observed that considering the evidence of RW2/Sub-Inspector of Police, Vizianagaram Rural Police Station, the Tribunal has answered issue No.I in favour of the appellants/claimants holding that the offending vehicle/Bolero hit the vehicle of the deceased and hence it is established that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the car driven by the 1^st respondent. But, however, on the ground that the deceased was not having valid driving license and that the vehicle driven by him has no valid registration certificate, the Tribunal fixed contributory negligence on the part of the deceased to an extent of 30%, which is admittedly contrary to the evidence of RW2, who has categorically stated that the Bolero vehicle hit the vehicle of the deceased. As such, there is no negligence on the part of the deceased in causing the accident. In such

¶117

14

¶118

VS,J MAMCMA No.106 of 2022

¶119

circumstances, the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Dinesh Kumar J. alias Dinesh J. vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others⁵ in para Nos.5 to 10 observed as under:

¶120

"5. On behalf of the appellant, it has been submitted that both the Tribunal and the High Court were manifestly in error in holding the appellant to be guilty of contributory negligence to the extent of forty per cent. It has been submitted that the Tribunal as well as the High Court proceeded on the erroneous premise that since the appellant had failed to produce the driving licence, an adverse inference on the aspect of contributory negligence would have to be drawn. Moreover, it was submitted that the entire discussion on contributory negligence is conjectural and is not worthy of acceptance. In this regard, reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in Sudhir Kumar Rana v Surinder Singh:(2008) 12 SCC 436.

¶121

Both the Tribunal, and in appeal in the High Court, have found fault with the appellant for not having produced his driving licence. The tribunal noted that the appellant had admitted in the course of his cross-examination that the road where the accident took place was a two-way road and that on each side, three vehicles could pass at a time. A suggestion was put to the appellant that while trying to overtake another vehicle, he had approached the offending lorry from the right side as a result of which the accident took place. The appellant denied the suggestion. The award of the tribunal indicates that absolutely no evidence was produced by the insurer to support the plea that there was contributory negligence on the part of the appellant.

¶122

Insofar as the judgment of the High Court is concerned, the Division Bench has placed a considerable degree of importance on the fact that there was no visible damage to the lorry but that it was the motorcycle which had suffered damage and that there was no eyewitness. We are in agreement with the submission which has been urged on behalf of the appellant that plea of contributory negligence was accepted purely on the basis of conjecture and without any evidence. Once the finding that there was contributory negligence on the part of the appellant is held to be without any basis, the second aspect which weighed both with the tribunal and the High Court, that the appellant had not produced the driving licence, would be of no relevance. This aspect has been considered in a judgment of this Court in Sudhir Kumar:(2008) 12 SCC 436 where it was held as follows: (SCC p. 439, paras 9-10)

¶123

"9.If a person drives a vehicle without a licence, he commits an offence. The same, by itself, in our opinion, may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the accident. It has been held by the courts below that it was the driver of the mini truck who was driving rashly and negligently. It is one thing to say that the appellant was not possessing

¶124

5 (2018) 1 Supreme Court Cases 750

¶125

15

¶126

VS,J MAMCMA No.106 of 2022

¶127

any licence but no finding of fact has been arrived at that he was driving the two-wheeler rashly and negligently. If he was not driving rashly and negligently which contributed to the accident, we fail to see as to how, only because he was not having a licence, he would be held to be guilty of contributory negligence."

¶128

The matter might have been different if by reason of his rash and negligent driving, the accident had taken place.

¶129

In view of the above position, we are of the view that the deduction of forty per cent which was made on the ground of contributory negligence is without any basis. Accordingly, we direct that the appellant shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs 4.60 lakhs which was wrongly disallowed.

¶130

We direct that the respondent shall accordingly pay an additional amount of Rs 4,60,000, over and above the amount which has been awarded by the High Court. This amount shall also carry interest at the rate of eight per cent per annum as awarded by the High Court, from the date of the petition until realisation. The insurer shall deposit the amount before the tribunal within 3 months which shall be released to the appellant.

¶131

The appeal is allowed in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs."

¶132

On perusal of the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court

¶133

in the above decision, it is clear that in the absence of driving licence also,

¶134

Hon'ble the Apex Court granted compensation in favour of the appellants.

¶135

As per the finding of the Hon‟ble Apex Court is extracted above, the only on the ground that the deceased was not having a licence could not be held guilty of contributory negligence when there was no rash and negligent driving on his part and when there is no evidence that he contributed to the accident, the Tribunal ought not to have fixed 30% on the deceased, which admittedly is in violation of the orders passed by the law laid down by the

¶136

Hon‟ble Apex Court. Thus, the appellants/claimants are entitled to the total compensation arrived at by this Court i.e., Rs.38,45,135/-.

¶137

16

¶138

VS,J MAMCMA No.106 of 2022

¶139

Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part and the order dated 11.12.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.294 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge‟s Court, Vizianagaram, is hereby modified by enhancing the compensation awarded to the appellants/petitioners from Rs.17,12,520/- to Rs.38,45,135/- with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the total compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶140

As a sequel, pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶141

JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶142

Date: 17.02.2026 KGR

Mulagada Rama Lakshmi v. SeelaEswara Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mulagada Rama Lakshmi v. SeelaEswara Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Apsrtc Vs Vada Minna

The Apsrtc Vs Penubadi Padmavathi

The Managing Director, Vs Yellavula Subbalakshmi

Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Vyda Arjuna Rao

A.P.S.R.T.C. Vs Settibattula Ananda Rao

M/S United Insurance Company Limited Vs Bongu Appalanaidu