Partly allowed

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indukuri Veera Shekara Satyamani and 4 Others

Telangana HC21 Jun 2022MACMA/3944/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced the compensation awarded in a motor accident case from over 40 lakhs to approximately 54.46 lakhs. The Court corrected the multiplier application and added 40% for future prospects based on the deceased's permanent employment status.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 40,89,500 to Rs. 54,46,000 with 7.5% per annum interest payable to the wife and minor daughter.

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Indukuri… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY. THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JUNE

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM^AKTHER AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI

¶7

M.A.C.M.A. NOS: 3944 AND 4001 o^{F 2014}

¶8

MACMA NO.3944 0F 2014:

¶9

Appeal under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against the Order^{and decree madein} MVOP No.334 of 2009 dated 30/07/2014 on the^file of^{the Court of the Chairman,} Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- XVll Additional Chief^Judge -cum-^lll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

¶10

i	Be *"' 3 4 5	tween: / R"iirn"uGeneral lnsuranceCompany Limited'. ii;i;;;;;center,^{19' WallchandHer:rachand lrilars'} Ballard^{Estate,Mumbai-400001} AND Srnt.^{tnclukuriVeeraShekaraSatyarnani'wlo'Lale/} in"u".not,^{Velma.aged30yearsOcc:Service'} UiisVenkatanaga^{!;riVyshnavld/oLate} i;i;;;;;J;;^{vur-ma,asea2 months, mitror utrder the} luardiansrrip^{o{naturairnother Snrt lndukuriVeera} Shekara^Satyalrarll n.roo,,o"nti^{'l& 2 ,rreIesidents of l-latNo 303'} nnr-nn"t,,l"n.v,^{PlotNo.98.Opp:l)'R'NagarBus} silrn^{rulo,nugui NerrYerragadda' llyderabad} lndrrkuriSatyanarayana^{Raju' s/o'Sornarajtl'ageoo3'} ';";;;^{o."Aqr,culiL,re, resident ofil'No'2-'t77} bJL^{rirrisu,Allavaramlvlandal' EastGodavari} oat,iit, ot"t"nity^{residing atFlatNo303'Arjun} E"-.io"n.u.^{plot'tilo.9a,opp:P R Nagar BusStop'} lrilotrnaqai, Near^{Yerragadda,Hydelabad} ,' tnaukuiLat<strmi^{Ptrshpavathi,Wol Satyanarayana}" n"r.loJ^{s}yearsOcc: Househtrldresidentof} ii-ir".z-'rzz,c"oilanka^{village,Allavaram Mandal'} E"iiooO"r"ti^{District, presentlyreriidingatFlat} r.lo.sOS.nrirn^{Residency,PlotNo'93Opp:} ;;N;;r;'B;.^{stop,IMotinagar' Nt'arYerrasadda'} Hvderabad. EIL="3Jii"os^{PrrvateLimited'represen tedbv/} NareshGLrpta,^{PlotNo.19,Block2,Autonagar'} Hayathnagar,^{RangareddyDistrict'}	-APPELLANT/ 2"dRespondent RESPiONDENTS/ :Petitioners RESPON^DENT/ Resfi-ndent^No.1

¶11

¶12

MACMA NO.4001 0F 2014:

¶13

Appeal under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against the Order and decree made in MVOP No.337 of 2009 dated 30/07/2014 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- XVll Chief Judge -cum-lll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

¶14

D0l\vcel]:. L Snrt. ln(lrl(ufi Vet:r-ir lilrcl.:rrrL Lrrtr :rrrrrrrLi W/o Llrtc I. liitvt:crrllrt Vclrnrr.^'r,l,rrl l{t r ,':rrr, Occ: Srr'r icr:. Miss Vctrllaltttugrr Slri /1'sltrrru'i. liir I rrtc l. Iirr,,e.:rrtlrit /, r'rrl Ag,:tl :i r, als, Nlirrtrr lltrrl,:r tlr, t,L rrf(lirrrr slriir ofrtirttrlal guahlir rrlr^rrot lrlr', lirrrt, lr,rlrrl..Lrri VelriL Sircl;.u rr li i r I 1, r r r r r r r L r i lloth rrLc li/o ArjLrn llesitl'rrL:y, I ]lt N(). ir)^r, I'lot No.(r8, Ol)p: I'.1i. Nui,,ar liu\ lilolr,^rltrl Yrlrui.,url.lrr, Motinll;rrr', I Iyr lr:rnirrul. .3. Irtrlrrlirrri^{'hly:rrr'rr,r1.r,r:r} lirr,r. l, 'i^,,r r,'-r . 65 yt aIs,^()r:c: lrrtIicrrltrr',,^gc li/o ll.l'lrr 2-177,^{(Ir,rIiIrrtrlil} Vrllrrr,,:. Nlrn,lll Alllvrtrt,rr [)islrict I;rsl(io(l.t,.1ri,^,r'c', rrt]r'c(,r.^(l(,u'r,,o l lyil,:r'irlr,l, Ii,'o Ari,rn Il!:ri(lcrr./ l lrt llr'..i()1, lllot No.^(,'S, Opp: l'].li. Na!rrr i^rLr.; llt,,l,, lr, rrr' 'e, r.trirrlLlrr, Motiuirllir, I Iyrlclul,rrrl. 4. Indullril,llislrrui l)Lrslrl:rri,rtlri \,','Lr l.liltl.rrurtllurr l(i,lLr. Agc 57 r,lr-s, Occ: I !rtrsc lroici, il'lr ILi'.1o. -l-I^i,i', CocliliLrr[;rr Village, l,4urtrlll,\ll.rvrir rrrrr I)is1ri(i1. I iirst firrcluvirri, fl r':i( nll'^{( , ,Lr('(L()} \ r, 1n llyrlerrrbrrLl, li/o .,\rjLru lir'.rir['rrr:' , I lrrr I.,,. i(r i, l'lot No.')ii,^()ppt l'.li. Nrt1rL'l.tlr iit,,l,. r,ir Ylrlrr1'rrrlrrr. Molinrt!,rrr, lll,ricllLlrll. . A rl,.,llttrtl:/l'ctii l rL , Anrl ,1.^{ilxp|c:;sli.oar.lwrry:rl'rivrlrl.l(l} Ii.,:I by Nr,r'esh Ou1,tir, l'lot N,, 1't,,,,,-, .' A,.rtonrlti[, I liryilthilr]agxr, l(.1( l)istrl,^r. 2- !{cllrn,:c^(icrrr)-ul ltr';utitncr'(l nLl r,rrr I^,!. l{eliitttrre^(i:trtit I1), Wlll,:lrirrrtl II^{:, r.rL} lrrrrr, l\rlrir;:, llrllrril ll.trtte, NlurrrL)ri -.1(100()1. ...liesIort1,.lrrlr,/lies|t,ri.l:trt; (l\rlicylrio.20070l.i150llj.Vrrli,1 lrLrr rl'i l{).100/ lo i:j.lrl.2()()ij)

¶15

For the Appellant^{: SRI K.AJAYKUMAR,Advocate in MACMA No'3944/2014} and for the Respondent^{No.2 in MACMA No'4001of 2014}

¶16

For the Respondents^{: SRI V.RAVINDER RAO, Senior Counselfor} SRI.SoURA.BHAGARWAL,AdvocateinMAcMANo.3s44/2014andforthe appellants in MACMA^No.4001/2014

¶17

For the Respondent^{No.s : NONE APPEAREDlN BOTH} The Court delivered the^{following: COMMON JUDGT"lENT}

¶18

THE HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER and THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

¶19

M.A.C.M.A.Nos.39 44 & 4OO1 ol 2OL4

¶20

COMMON J UDGMENT :^(Per Hon'ble Dr. Justice Shameem Akther)

¶21

Since the facts oF the case, issues involved,^parties to^the litigation and the Award under cha!i.-'nge in both these appeals^are one and the same, both these appeals are taken up^{togetherand are} being disposed of by this common^judgment.

¶22

Challenging the Award and decree, dated 30.07.2014,^passed in M.V.O.P.No.334 of 2009 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XVII Additional Chief Judge-cum-III^Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad^('the T'ribunal', for^brevity), the Reliance General Insurance Company^{Limited filed M.A.C.M'A'} No.3944 of 2Ol4 seeking to set aside the^{impugnedAward and the} claimants preferred M.A.C.M.A.No.4001 of 20L4^seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for both sides and^perusedthe record. The^parties will be hereinafter referred to^{as arrayed before} the Tribunal.

¶24

4, Sri K.Ajay Kumar, learned counsel^{for the appellantsin MACMA} No.4001 of 2074 and respondent Nos.1 to 4 in^{MACMANo'3944of}

¶25

¶26

)

¶27

l)r.S-.J&Jll.J \l^r-( ll \ ,.1!r{ ai 10Cl of^21rl'j

¶28

2014 (claimants) would contend that^{the Tribunalhad granted} meagre compensation of^{Rs.40,89,500/-as against a claitT of} Rs.l,07,95,9761-. The deceased-I.Raveendra^{Vermawas 32 years} old as oi'l the date of occuri-ence of^{the subject accidentand was} working as SAP consultant at Intelli^{Group Asia Private Limited and} drawing a monthly salary of^{Rs3A,574/-. The subject accident} occurred on 14.06.2008 and^{the deceasedsuccumbed to the injuries} on the spot. Since the deceased^{was 32 yearsold as on the date of} the subject accident, the^{Tribunalrightly took the nluitipiier as'17'} applicable to his age. However, the^{Tribuna!erred in not adding} 40o/o lo the salary of the deceased^{towards futureprospects, thouqh} the deceased was a^{permanent employee of Intelli GroupAsia Privale} Limited. Though the^{claimantsare entitled for an amountof} Rs.70,O0O/- under the conventional^{heads as per the decisioncf the} l-lon'ble Apex Court in Nationa! Insurance^{Company Limited Vs.}

¶29

Pranay Sethi and othersl, the^{Tribunalgranted ameagre} compensation of Rs.9,500/- under the^{conventional heads,whichis} erroneous, and ultimately^{prayed to enhancethe compensation, as} claimed.

¶30

On the other hand, Sri V.Ravinder^{Rao, learnedsenior counsei} appearing for Sri Sourabh Agarwal,^{learned counsel for the appellant}

¶31

' 1zotzl^{to Supremecourt Cases 680}

¶32

D.SA'J&Js,J MACMA^{Noglga4& 4001 of20l'l}

¶33

¶34

in M.A.C.M.A.No.3994^{and respondentNo'2 in M'A'C'M'A'No'4001of} 2012^{(Reliance General Insurancecompany Limited) wouldcontend} that the^{Tribunal granted excesscompensationof Rs'40'89'500/-to} the claimants,^{without any basis' Though the Tribunaltook the} monthly salary^{of the deceasedas Rs'30,574l. basing on Ex.A3-} the deceased,^{none were examinedto} Salary^{CertiFicate of} There is^{no legallyacceptable evidence to} substantiate^{the same} hold that^{the deceasedwas drawinga monthly salaryof Rs'30'574/-} as on the^{date of his death in the subjectaccident' Thus' if Ex'A3 is} held to be^{invalid, assessmentof compensationarrived at by the} Tribunalundertheheadlossofdependencywouldbesubstantially reduced.^{Further,though the appropriatemultiplierapplicable to the} age of the^{deceased is '16', the Tribunal erroneouslytook multiplier} '17', Further, the^{Tribunal granted adequate compensation under} other heads.^{There areno circumstances to enhancethe} the Tribunal^as Prayed^{for bY the} compensation^awardedbY claimants^{and ultimatelyprayedto reduce the compensationawarded} by the^Tribunal.

¶35

In view^{of the aboverival contentions' the pointsthat arise for} determination^{in both theseappeals are as follows:-}

¶36

Whether^{theclaimants are entitled forenhancementof} iomPensation^{as PraYedfor?}

¶37

Whether^{the compensationawarded by the Tribunalis required}

¶38

2, uv the rnsurance^companv?

¶39

to be reduced, "l'Ii]iiJtia"a

i- I

Dr.S,r.,J&.lS.J lU,\C\l]\ Nos..39tl & 1001 l'101r

¶44

To what relief?

¶45

Points:-

¶46

It is t'lot in dispute that the deceased-I.Raveendra Verma died in the subject accident that occurred on 14.06.2008, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending goods vehicle bearing registration No.AP-29-T-8023.

¶47

To substantiate their clainl, the claimants got examined pW.1 to PW.4 and got marked Exs.A1 to 411. On behalf of the Insurance Company, none was examined and Ex.B1-True Copy of policy was marked.

¶48

The Court below, basing on the oral and documentary evidence on record, took the age of the deceased as 31 years as on the date of the subject accident, took the net salary of the deceased as Rs.30,574/- rounded to Rs.30,000/-, deducted l/3,d of the amount towards personal expenses, applied multiplier^,17,, and accordingly calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs.40,80,000/-. The Tribunal further added an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs,2,500/_ towards loss of estate and accordingly awarded the compensation at Rs.40,89,500/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

¶49

Dr.SA,J&JS,J IUAC|U:\ Nos.l9{l& 1001 of20lr

¶50

(

¶51

The claimants'case is that the deceased was aged 32 years as on the date of the subject accident. Ex,A2 is the PME report of the deceased in which, the age of the deceased was shown as 31 years. Even if the age of the deceased is 31 or 32 years, it makes no difference, since as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2, the appropriate multiplier applicable to the age group between 31 to 35 years is'16'. Hence, the appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased is '16' and not'17', as adopted by the Tribunal.

¶52

As regards the monthly income of the deceased, PW.2-Venkata Subramanyam Atchuta, deposed in his evidence that the deceased was working along with him as a Consultant in Intelli Group Asia Limited. He further deposed that Ex,A3-salary certificate was issued from their company. As per Ex.A3, the monthly salary of the deceased was Rs.30,574l-. Though the Insurance Company had denied the genuineness of Ex.A3 and the employment of the deceased, it did not choose to summon any officer from the Intelli Group Asia Limited to demonstrate that the deceased was not ernployed in the said Company and not receiving salary of Rs.30,574l- per month. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal, basing on Ex.A3 salary certificate of the deceased, rightly took the

¶53

'^{AIR2oo9sc a l04}

¶54

t)is.,J & Js,.r ltAclil.\ )ios.l9n,1& 4001 uf 20lt

¶55

¶56

rnonthly salary of the deceased as Rs.30,574l- rounded to Rs.30,000/-, Further, since the deceased was aged 32 years as on the date of the subject accident and was a permanent employee of Intelli Group Asia Limited, this Ccurt deems it appropriate to add aCded 40o/o of actual income toivards future prospects. Further, the Tribunal rightly deducted 1/3'd of the amount towards personal expenses of the deceased. Further, the Court below granted an amount of Rs.9,500/- under the convention heads, i.e., loss of cons,Jrtium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, l,vhich are on iower side. As rightly contended by the learned counsel For the claimants, in Pranay Sethi's case supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court granted an amount of Rs.70,000/- undei' the conventional heads, i.e., Rs,15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of conscrtium and Rs.15,000/- towai'ds funeral expenses. Hence, the Court below granting an amount of Rs.9,500/- requires variation.

¶57

L2. Having regard to the oral and documentary evidence on record, this Court deems it appropriate to take the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.30,000/-. Thus, the annual income of the deceased comes to (Rs.30,000/- x 12) Rs.3,60,OOO/-. As observed supra, if 40o/o is added towards future prospects, the amount comes to (Rs.3,60,000/- + Rs.1,44,000/-) Rs.5,04,000/-. As observed supra, l/3'd of the amount is deducted towards personal expenses of the

¶58

Di.SA,J&JS,J l\lACMA los.391l &¹⁰⁰¹ of20l{

I \

( t

deceased, then the total loss of^{dependency would come to} (Rs.5,04,000/- minus Rs,1,68,000/-) Rs.3,36,000/-'^{As observed} supra, the appropriate^{multiplier applicable to the age of the} deceased is '16'.^{Thus, the total loss of earningswould cometo} (Rs.3,36,000/- x 16) Rs.53,76,000/-.^{Followingthe verdictof the} Hon'ble Apex Court in^{Pranay Sethi's case (1 supra), we grantan} amount of Rs.70,O0O/-^{under the conventionalheads,i'€',} Rs.15,000/- towards loss^{of estate,Rs.40,000/-towards loss of} consortium and Rs.15,000/-^{towards funeralexpenses'Thus, in all,} the claimants are entitled^{for a compensationof (Rs'53,76,000/-+} Rs.70,000/-) Rs.54,46,000/-^{(Rupees Fifty Four Lakhs FourtySix} thousand only). The^{Court below granted interest@ 7'5oloPer} annum on the amount^{awarded as compensationfrom the date of} petition till the date of realisation, which^{is just and reasonable'}

¶63

In the result, the^{M.A.C'M'A.No.4001 of 2014 filed by the} claimants is allowed^{in part, modifying the order, dated 30'07'2014,} passed in MVOP No.334 of 2OO9 by the^{Tribunal,enhancingthe} compensation^{from Rs.40,89,5OO/-to Rs.54,46,000/-. The enhanced} amount of compensation^{shallcarry interesl @ 7.5o/o per annum,} from the date of claim^{petitiontill realisation.}

¶64

L4. At this stage, it is^{brought to the notice of this Court that the} appellant Nos.3 &^{4 in MACMANo.4001 of 2OL4/respondent Nos'3&}

¶65

¶66

¶67

D:.S \ .J J!..) ll( \l.\ ,js:39|J.\ ^i ,100t or:0li I

¶68

4 in MACMA ll1C3944 of 20L4 (parents of the,-tcceaseci) har..e given up their claim in these appeals anci wanted the rninoi- daughter.of the deceased to take the enhanced arnount, if any. Irr vietv oi the sanre, the enhancec! amount along t,'ith the interest :.ccrilec thereon, shaI be payable equally to appellant Nos.l and 2 in MACi,iA No.4001 of 2}L,/respondent Nos.1 anci 2 in i"tACMA No.3944 ef ZOi4 (wife and mi'or daughter of the deceased) and they are entiiled to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrueil thereon on deposit of the same by the Insurance Ccmpany, .,1t!tcuI fu!-!]ishing any seclirity. The other terms of tlre Award Liir,ier challengc i-emain unaltereci. Consequenfly, MACf\tA No.3944 of ZO14 f.iled cy the Irisurance Company is dismissed,

¶69

i'!iscella neous petitions, if any, pendinq ir, both these crDoeajs, staird closed. Both the parties are cirected t. bear their respective ccsts.

¶70

Sd/-T.KRISHNA KUMAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR

¶71

//TRUE COPY//

¶72

r.^ -.,u-..SECTION OFFICER

¶73

¶74

I The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum-^{XVll ChiefJudge-} cum- lllAdditional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,^{Hyderabad. (with records)} One CC to Sri K.Ajay Kumar, Advocate^(OPUC)

¶75

2.'l One CC to Sri Sourabh Agarwal,^{Advocate (OPUC)}

¶76

Two CD Copies

¶77

One Spare pv

::----l:r-

HIGH COURT

DATED:2110612022

L (l
.) (
t
(:)
Nitt
J',tt ...'
t1
\ 'j +
.-=:'2'

¶83

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶84

MACM,A.Nos.3944 and 4001 ol²⁰¹⁴

¶85

DSMISSING THE MACMA 394412014 AND ALLOWING THE cMA 4001/2014 rN PART.

¶86

<br>l,'

¶87

¶88

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD.

¶89

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JUNE

¶90

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶91

PRESENT

¶92

THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER AND

¶93

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI

¶94

M.A.C.M.A. NOS: 3944 AND 4001 OF 2014

¶95

MACMA NO.3944 0F 2014:

¶96

ilelarrr:e L,.-nr?t al l1 j(,r!,t,ce r. r,1 jr,a1y t.tmtlcrl, Iict,a,t.'c,r.nlFr. 1i,, Wallc{talr,l I l,,crac,taIld IVl.)r0. , AI''PELLANIT nallarrl l:sli1te, t,4unrbai-4OOO0 L 2"'r Respondent i;xrl lrl,lrLr, r Vcr,,ir r.;ltek:trii t,tly.r,1r:r,,i.Tl', r,"-. :iiaveer{lrii^{V',rI;r, aqc{i 30 V.-.r. OL.: Servtc,r} [,4iSl, Ver\kjllanA0,,:rr Vy!l ]itvt, (j/L, I iile IIli]v(.on,,,., Verl a. itqe(l 2 ntr, tlrs, rril|,,t l,nrl,jt llte gLratdiaDshit) of nat|.al rrofl ter l}i rt.ln(lLrkuri Veera l;lrc"'tla l,.,tyarr], r,I lii)sDrt)delrts I & :Z , rre residenls ol l:lat No.303, i nrjrflr licsr,kincy t,h,t No cJB, Ol)p l, t( Nagi]r Rus I ;lop l,4r,lIt.r.,ilr, lle.I Ycr ragirrldJ, Ilycierinarl. lrlrllrkllri lin,vat]a'irV tna liajlt, s/o go1ra,;lju, i10cri 65. ycars. ()cr AOric,lt r,e ,eSi(lcnl ()r i.l.No 2 177: C,)(lrl:rnkil vtllage /\rl3varalll l,4J1(lirl, Eirst Godavati urst , I l,r.:sently re:.idjrlg at Flnl No.303, ArJUn l:cs,rlen.y t,lor tk,.{rB, Opp p R.}ta.tar llu!t Stop, l,4o1l,raq.ir,,.le;rf YL.rraeadda, Flyrleratra,l. ,1 lnduk n I iri(shnri [' Shpavalhi, w/o l.S;aryanatayana.,.. l(iUU, a!(j(l 57 yeir: Occ lloUsclt(,|c,, resident of tl No-_2-17 / , Codltar rka vtllage, Allayararn l\ra dal, Easl {;orlavan Distri.t, presen y rc:iidi ! at Flat No.303 nrl n l(esrd,,ncy, plot No.(,r,, Ot)t) I P R Nagil, t]tls SIop A,l()tinagar tJt.ar yeiragadde, REIJPONDENTS/ Hydera,);n I l,etitioners l) Express Rladway:. t,riviile Linltlcd, renresenle(l by . llaresh (iltpta, Plol l.to..l0, Rlock ?. nUtonagar, llayathrlaoar, Iian(lnreddy District. ..RESPONOEN V lie:jpc\ndent No.1

¶97

Betrvceu:-

¶98

l.^{Smt,InclukuriVecla SlrekrrnSittylrrlrnl} / ij;Late^{I. Rrvcertth{r Vcrnr:r'rrgr':'Ji() l errs'} , occ: ;t::;,;o;i;naga Servicc'^{sri Vv slrnrr i' I tio L.te} r^l- r.r,',','rrl'i^{l'i'rtrc..'rttlt} tⁱ VcllllJ / Xl:',s'i:::;;'il:";'^{Urrdettrre gtrrrrrnit. srri,lr} ,,f-norr.,,^l^{guardianinrottre'r} '^{sn'ii"tt"ttt'r.ivtcrrt Sltelirr:t Sirlyalllillll} l(esirlcrrcv'^{1r111 |'Jrr3()3'} t;li,;;'?;n'j.n Plot No^{98, Ol)p: l' l( ";:';ii":it()p'N!'lr Y,'ttrtr.l:trl..lit'} Motinagar'^{l-lYderabrrd'} o1,. r tnauktrli^{SatyanorayrlnitRajtr'S/o Sotn'trr.1tt'} /-^',li; ot Ytn'.i' o"t' Agricrrltttt^e' ;X"unif^{z-izz' codilankrVillage' Nlantml} t^I o^u'l'lt'lr I;^^{;;; ; ;-,';:':} t' ;'.".','iJil;l il:,..;l il ;;i]' Ilvdeltrbnd,^{Wo Arl on l(esr(r"]l"v} .:.1:^',..i,, vorr"'.".t.t^, ;i'J N;"98'^{opp: P'lt' Nagar Dtrs slop' NL'ar Yet ritgrtt} Motinagar'^Hyde'oottu rouo,l.,,^{w,. I. Satyanarayuna Rir]tt,} 4- tndukuli^LakshmiPttsh / ' ^da(?^{wenls-Occ:llotrsc hold'R/o I-l No 2-l i i'} ailtl^"'k;village'MandalAllirvit'at, ii.i,i ",^{e,., c} "a^{1, I'i} fffi"d:',Y;l lil;'iil^{i l:,} Hvderabad,^{IUo Atlun t(esrus]lLr',:.1:: ',.i--} vn, .,,natl,l"' Petitiorrcrs ;,'"1N;"il'^{oppt t'R' nngn,. Btr:;i:itop'Netr Yct rrtBattui"} Motinagar"^I-IYderabro' 'ellantsi

¶99

And r. ij*Pr"tt^{RoaclwaY:rI'rivateLttl'} "^{I"I'i" N^t"sh G-rrpta' Plot No l(r Blocli'l'} e,'l#t"t,^{Ilayatiiarragar' R R District'} ,. ii;i;;.;^{General lnstrra.ccConrl'i.ry l'ltl} ' ' ,'^' r'1,^{wallclr.nct Il':.'trtclt;tnLl N4itts'} nts 'i"ii;;;;6"nt". Bailarcl^{F.state, r.ar^t"i I)ioo iriit'} ,,1 fcsPontlents/liespo'''le (PoticvNo.^{2007013150;;'v"il(ili""'I4 l0 2007 to l3 l0 2008)''}

¶100

,4'

¶101

Appeals under Section^'173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgmenU order and decree made in MVOP No.334 of 2009 daled 3010712O14 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Ivlotor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- XVll Additional Chief Judge -cum-^{lll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,Hyderabad.}

¶102

ORDER: 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 suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K.Ajay Kumar, Advocate for the appellant in MACMA No.3944/2014 and Respondent No.2 in MACMA No.4001 ol 2014 and Sri.V.Ravinder Rao, Senior Counsel for Sri Sourabh Agaruval, Advocate for the Appellants in MACMA No.4001 of 2014 and Respondents 1 to 4 in MACMA No.3944/2014 and of the Respondents No.1 in IVACIVIA No.3944/2014 and of the Respondent No.1 in IMACI/A No.4001/2014 and No.5 in IVACN/A No.3944/20'14 not appeared in person or by Advocate.

¶103

This Court doth Order and decree^{as follows:-}

¶104

1 That allowed theⁱⁿ MACMA^{part and No.4001 fvfnCNla No of 2014 is44 filed filed by by the the Claimants lnsurance Company be and hereby be andis}

¶105

2 +i:1T5:[Tl';:*,^{3oto7t2oi4 passed in MVoP.No 334 or 20oe bv.the} Tribunal, be^{and hereoy ,t'r"t' i'ii"- enhancingthe compensation from} Rs,40,89,500t^{to Rs.s+,ao]oo-ol]tri'p""t ifivlo'ir. turr't fortvsixthousand}

¶106