Partly allowed

Yada Lingamma v. G. Bhramaiah, And 4 Others

Telangana HC8 Sept 2023MACMA/129/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment addresses two Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeals concerning compensation for a motor accident death. The Court enhanced the awarded compensation from 20 lakhs to 27.68 lakhs based on revised income calculations and future prospects capped at 40%. It further held that the deceased's wife is entitled to 70% of the compensation and his mother to the remaining 30%, referencing Su

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 27,68,000/-; Wife awarded 70% share, Mother 30%; Liability on respondents is joint and several with interest at 7.5% per annum.

Yada Lingamma Vs G. Bhramaiah, And 4 Others — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^{3386 ]}

¶2

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY,^{THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMB_ER} ' 'rinio iHousnuo nruo TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE P'SAM KOSHY} AND THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTIC'iINXMINARAYANAALISHETW} PPEA^{L Nos: 2s08 0F} 2017 MOTORA^{CCIDEN T CIVILMISCELLANEOUSA} AND 129^0F 2020

¶6

!,itH:ffilx$i*1ti?Hi:I[i3[i

¶7

ffifffiut:?t[:.]1,:],:"i]i{lif

¶8

MOTOR^{ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUSAPPEAL No: 2508 OF 2017} Between:

¶9

R/o.6-6-467/1 '^{Gandhi Nagar Behindold} Yada^{Shilpa, Wo Late Yada Ashwin kumar'} Praga^{Tools, Secunderabad'}

¶10

"'APPellanUResPondent^No'5

¶11

AND

¶12

Yada^{Lingamma,WoLate V"O""itff'"'R/o'6-6-37/18'KavadigudaMain} Road, Secunderabad' ...Respondent^{No.1/Petitioner}

¶13

G.Bhramaiah,^{s /o'Pichaiah'R/o DoorNo 4/1 31' Gupta NagarBadvel'}

¶14

, 5:ffi ';'l?^{l'i'8t n.-,",r n s u ran ce- c o mP} i' [^tlo,; Ii^{o#"xi?i'rlT','M a nas e r'} Divisional^{om"", u"piuil' il["'t n"!oaYerwactaPune 411 006'}

¶15

- Mrs. 6'el c"J;;y,^{C.M.S. candrri Associ"i["ii"p'ov il'-g"' N"* aukaram' its T'sangames'hwar HvderabadRao' R/o'PlotNo'135'} 5. Tata^{AIG General l;:ffincJ'ffipanvrto' neo bv its Manager'Po Box} No.9407,^{ChakalamideFostOffice'Mumbai4OO 093} ...Responden*

¶16

...Responden*

¶17

MOTOR^{ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No: 129 ot 2020} Between:Yada Linqamma,^{Wo LateYada Sekhar'R/o 6-6-37i18' KavadigudaMainRoad'} Secunderabad,^{Rep by opn riioli i'lRavinoerR/o MvrargadJa, sithafalmandi'} Secunderabad ..AppellanUPetitioner

¶18

..AppellanUPetitioner

¶19

AND

¶20

1 . G.Bhramaiah,^{S/o.Pichaiah, Rio Door No 4i 131 ' Gupta Nagar Badvel' Kadapa}

¶21

, BilXit,","z^{Generar rnsurancec"1,pi"Y.il9.'^T:o'?Y^:',?i'"1"JarManager'} Dtvisional^{office. GeplaJJ' iito"tt no3o.V"*-111Pune411006}

¶22

1. Mrs.^{C.M.S. Associut"i-if"p'Oyits T SangameshwarRao' R/o Plot No'135'} "^'sal cJ""y. Gandhi rualar' New aakaram' Hyd-erabad' 4. - rata^{AIG General l"t;;;;';;;n"tvit9t1"9 bv its Manaser' Po Box}

¶23

f.r..eaoz,^{chakalamide Post office'Mumbai-400093'}

¶24

1. Yada^{Shilpa, W/oLa"'V"O''nJ*in k"u'' R/o6-6-467/1' GandhiNagar} " g"hrOordPiagaTools,secunderabad ...Respondents/Respondents

¶25

Counsel^{for the APPellant in MACMA} No.2508^{of 2O17 and Counselfor the} Respondent^{No.5 in MACMA No129 of 2020}

¶26

STi T SHYAM^KUMAR

¶27

Counsel^{for the ResPondent No'1 in} MACMANo.2508^{ol 2017 &Counsel} for the^{Appellant in MACMA No'129of 202O}

¶28

STi CHALLA^{AJAY KUMAR}

¶29

Counsel^{for the Respondent No'3 in} MACMA^{No.2508 of 2017 & ResPondent}

¶30

No.2 in^{MACMANo'129 ot 202O}

¶31

STi A.^{RAMAKRISHNAREDDY}

¶32

The Court^{delivered the following: COMMONJUDGMENT}

¶33

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶34

M.A.C.M.A.NOs.25O8 of 2OL7 and 129 of 2O2O

¶35

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Inxni Nuagana AlAhetty)

¶36

M.A.C.M.A.No.2508 of 2Ol7 is frled by the appellant/wife of the deceased, who is respondent no.5 in M.V.O.P.No.589 of 2010, challenging the order dated 16.05.2017 passed by the XXVII Additional Chief Judge-cum-Chairmarr, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (for short, MACT) for non-awarding of compensation to her.

¶37

M.A.C.M.A.No.l29 of 2O2O is fiIed by the appellant/mother of the deceased, who is claimant in M.V.O.P.No.589 of 2010, challenging the order dated 16.05.2017 passed by the MACT seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶38

Since both the appea-ls are arising out of M.V.O.P.NO.589 of 2O10, dated 16.05.2017 passed by the MACT, the same are taken up and decided by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, MACT No. 129 of 2O2O is taken up as the lead case

¶39

so far as the facts are concerned.

¶40

It\

¶41

);I

¶42

ps(r & LNA,I MACMA 110.2503 0f2017 & 129 0f2020

¶43

¶44

:'r

¶45

The brief facts ieading to hling of the above appeals are^as under:

¶46

On 17.10.20O8 at 3.30 a.m., the deceased,^mother of^the deceased ald the family were travelling to Tirupathi in a^Car bearing registration NO.AP-27 -U-7408 and when they^reached Heritage Milk Dairy, Nandyal- Allagadda^{road, Nandyal, the driver} of the Car dashed the stationary 1orry bearing^{registrationNo.AP-} O9-BL-3222 from behind. The said iorry^{was parkedwithoutany} stopping indications. As a result, the Car^{was completelydamaged} and Car Driver and the son of the claimant^{died on the spot.The} Police, Nandyal Police Station registered a crime^No.250/2008 under Section 3O4-A of IPC.

¶47

The claimant i.e., mother, filed claim^petition under^Section 166 read with Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act,^{1988 before the} MACT ctaiming for compensation of Rs.20,0O,OO0/- along^with interest from the date of the accident till the date of realization.

¶48

The deceased was aged 31^years as on the date of^the accident, hale and healthy and doing business in the^nameand styie of M/ s.Liberty Motors dealing^{with sales} and^servicesof

¶49

¶50

automobile parts and used to earn more than Rs.2,75,00O/- per annum and was spending the same for the maintenance of claimant and his family. Respondent no. 1 is the lorry driver, respondent no.2 is the insurance company of the lorry, respondent no.3 is the car owner, respondent no.4 is the insurance company of the car and the wife of the deceased, who was arrayed as respondent No.5 alleging non-cooperation for hling O.P.

¶51

The respondent no. 1 remained ex parte and the claim petition against respondent no.4 was dismissed. Respondent nos.2 and 3 contested the case by filing the counters. Respondent no.5 did not hle any counter though made appearance through advocate, however, examined herself as RW.2.

¶52

In order to substantiate the case, the claimant herself was examined as P.W. 1 and Exs.Al to A7 were marked on her behalf. On behalf of the 2"d respondent-insurance comparry, Senior Executive of the respondent no.2 was examined as RW. I and copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.Bl. Respondent no.5 herself examined as R.W.2 and Ex.B2-medical certificate issued by Omega

¶53

Hpspital was marked on her behalf. \

¶54

P5KJ&TNAJ MACMA No.25!3 0t2017 & 129 0f2020

¶55

¶56

Considering the pleadings and material placed on record, the MACT awarded compensation of Rs.2O,O0,0OO/_ on account of death of the deccased under the following heads.

¶57

Sl.No.	Head	CoDrpensationaEarded
I	Loss ofdependency	Rs.19,2O,O00/-
c	Loss of lovealdaffection	Rs.7O,O)O/-
2	Funeralexpenses	Rs.10,000/-
4	Lossof Estate	Rs.15,O00/-
	Total	Rs.20,00,O00/-

¶58

The MACT also awarded interest @ Z .5o/o per annum from the date of liiing of the petition til the date of payment against respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally and claim petition against respondent no.4 was already dismissed as well as against respondent no.S who is the wife of deceased. The MACT directed that entire compensation amount to be paid to the claimant i.e., mother of the deceased and did not award any compensation to the wife of the deceased i.e., appellant in MACMA No.2SOg of 2017.

¶59

PS(,J&LNA,] MACMA No.25O3 of 2017 & 129 of 2020

¶60

¶61

L2. The MACT permitted the claimalt to withdraw a sum of Rs.10,0O,00O/- immediately and remaining amount shall be kept in hxed deposit in any nationalized bank for three years.

¶62

Aggrieved by the order dated 16.05.2017, wife of the deceased (respondent no.5 in MVOP No.589 of 201O) filed appea-l vide MACMA No.25O8 of 2OI7, specifrcally challenging the order of MACT insofar as non-awarding of compensation amount to her. She also hled MACMA MP No.4459 of 2Ol7 for stay of^judgment and decree dated 16.05.2017. This Court vide order dated 22.09.2017 in MACMA MP No.4459 of 2OI7 had permitted the appellant (claimant in MVOP No.589 of 2010) to withdraw only a sum of Rs.5,00,O00/- as against the order of the MACT permitting to withdraw a sum of Rs.1O,00,000/-.

¶63

The points for consideration are:

¶64

Whether the appellant in MACMA No.129 of 2020 is entitled for enhancement of compensation ?

¶65

Whether the appellant in MACMA No.2508 of 2Ol7 is entitled to a share in the compensation amount awarded in MVOP No.589 of201O ?

¶66

)

¶67

PsX,J & TNAJ MACMA No.2s03 0f2017 & 129 0f2020

¶68

¶69

¶70

Heard learned counsel Sri Ch.Ajay Kumar for appellant in MACMA No. 129 of 2O2O, learned senior counsel Sri J.Prabhakar appearing for Sri T. Shyam Kumar for appellant in MACMA No.25O8 of 2017, and learned counsel Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy for respondent no.3-Bajaj Allianz General Insuralce Co.Ltd.

¶71

Learned counsel for appellant Sri Ch.Ajay Kumar in MACMA No. 129 of 2O2O would submit that the MACT did not award proper and just compensation to the claimant. He further submitted that the deceased was engaged in business and was earning good amounts ald therefore, the MACT ought to have awarded Rs.50.00 lakhs as compensation. However, the MACT had taken income of the deceased as only Rs. 10,0O0/- per month ignoring the income of the deceased and therefore, prayed for enhancement of cornpensation.

¶72

L7. Learned senior counsel Sri J.Prabhakar placed on record the income tax returns of the deceased for the hnancial year 2OO8-09, as per which, the gross income of the deceased is shown as Rs.S,29,24O/-. Learned senior counsel referred to TDS paid by the deceased aggregating to Rs.27,729/- to show that the deceased was earning substantial amount through his business and

¶73

PsK'J&LNA,] MACMA No293 or20l7 & r296rI)x

¶74

.r7

¶75

¶76

therefore, the appellant is entitled for enhalcement of compensation. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the MACT committed error in not awarding compensation amount to the wife, who was arrayed as respondent no.5, though she is entitled to compensation amount. He further submitted that nonjoining of wife of the deceased as petitioner in the MVOP does not disentitle the wife from claiming compensation amount. Therefore, the MACT ought to have awarded compensation to the wife of the deceased. The learned senior counsel further submitted that wife should have been awarded 7 Ook of the compensation amount and mother of the deceased the ba]ance of 3Oo/o.

¶77

In support of his contention, learned senior counsel placed

¶78

reliance on the following decisions:

¶79

i) Smt. Vimla v. Dinesh Kumar Sharma and othersl;

¶80

ii) Cherotte Sugathan (deadl through LRs and others vs. Cherotte Bharathi and others2;

¶81

iii) Thankam v. Rajan3

¶82

\ '^{2006 stcontineMP 223} '^{(2008) 2 scc 6lo} r AIR 1999 Ker 62

¶83

¶84

PsXt & LNA,r MAaMA No.250Sof2017 & r29 0f2020

¶85

¶86

In Vimla (supra), the Hon'ble Gwalior Bench held that widow and mother of the deceased are entitled to 7 O%o ald 3O% of the awarded compensation, respectively. Hon'ble Gwalior Bench held as under

¶87

"17, As regards apportionment is concerned, it will dependant on facts arld circumstances of each case. In the present case, the widow who is examined as AW 3 has specifically stated that she was living with her husband at the time o[ the accident and her in laws and other members were resrding separately. This evidence is not rebutted by other claimants. Moreover, the remaining life span of the widow is more than that of a mother. Whenever a claim for compensation is hled by the parents alone the lesser multiplier is applicable. Considering this fact, we hold that the compensation be apportioned between the widow and the mother of the deceased as 70yo and 3Oo/o r.e. widow shall be entitled to compensation to 7Oo/o and 3070 amount of the award shall be payable to the mother of the deceased."

¶88

In Cherotte Sugathan [supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even though widow is remarried, she is still entitled to deceased husband's share. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that by operation of Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 for the death of husband, his share vested absolutely in the widow.

¶89

6X,I & LNA,J MACMA No.Z506 0f Zo_t7 & I29012020

¶90

¶91

-7

¶92

In Thankam (supra) the Hon'ble High Court held that remarriage of wife cannot be a ground for her losing right to succeed to her deceased husbald's property.

¶93

On the other hand, learned counsel Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy for the insurance company would submit that MACT, in fact, has taken into consideration the monthly income as Rs.f0,000/- without there being any document and therefore, the appellants are not entitled to any further enhancement. He further submitted that the MACT had awarded 507o future prospects, which is contrary to the^judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that if the deceased is self-employed and does not have permanent job, the future prospects are restricted to 4Oo/o. Therefore, fu ture prospects have to be conhned only to 4Ooh.

¶94

Considering the facts and material placed on record, specifically the income tax returns filed for the hnancial year 2OO7 - 08, wherein the income of the deceased shown as Rs.5,29,24O/and a,lso the TDS amounting to Rs.27,729/-, the Bench is of the considered opinion that monthly income of the deceased can be taken as Rs. 15000/-^per month. Then the yearly income comes to

¶95

P!(,r & tNA,r MACMA No 2503012017 & 1290f2020

¶96

¶97

Rs. 1,80,00O/-. Following second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, one third of the compensation shall be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, had he been alive. Therefore, it works out to Rs.1,80,O00/- (-) Rs.60,000/- = Rs. 1,20,000/- p.a.

¶98

In Pranay Sethi (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph 59.4 held that in case the deceased self employed or on a hxed salary an addition of 4Oo/o of estabiished income shouid be warrant, where the deceased was below the age of40 years.

¶99

In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), the future prospects are restricted to 4Ook and accordingly, the future prospects stands corrected from 50% to 407o since the deceased was self-employed, neither government employee nor any permanent income. Hence,4Oo/o of Rs. 1,2O,O00/comes to Rs.a8,O00/-. Therefore, the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs. 1,68,O00/- (Rs.1,2O,OOO/- + Rs.48,000/-). As the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 31 years, the multiplier applicable would be 76, which comes to Rs.26,88,000/- (Rs. 1,68,O00/- x 16). Therefore, the loss of

¶100

PSX,I&LNA,J MACMA rlo 250a of2017 & 1290f 2020

I I

dependency is enhanced by Rs.7,68,000/- (Rs.26,88,000/-^- Rs. 19,20,000/-).

¶105

Insofar as the apportionment of the compensation concerned, we are in respectful agreement with the decision of the Gwa,lior Bench of M.P. in Vimla (supra), and accordingly, wife of the deceased i.e., respondent no.5 in MACMA No. 129 of 2O2O and appellant in MACMA No.25O8 of 2Ol7 is entitled to 7O7o of the compensation amount and the mother of the deceased i.e., appellant in MACMA No. 129 of 2O2O is entitled to balance 3Oo/o of the compensation amount.

¶106

In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the appellants are

¶107

entitled to the following amounts:

¶108

Sl.lto.	Hcad	CoDpensatlonawarded
1	Ircssof dependency	Rs.26,88,0OO/-
2	l,oss of loveand alfection	Rs.7O,OOO/-
	Funeralexpenses	Rs.10,000/-
4	Total compensationawarded	F.s.27,68,OOo/-

¶109

The respondents 1 to 3 are held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded with interest @ 7.5o/o per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment.

¶110

¶111

PS(,r a iNA,' MAaMA No rtos 0f20r7 &:?9^0f2020

¶112

¶113

In the result, MACMA^{No.25O8 of 2Ol7 isallowed and} MACMA No. 129 of 2O2O is^{partly allowed.}

¶114

The compensation amount^{is enhancedfromRs.20,00,O00/-} to Rs.27,68,000/-, subject to^{paymentof dehcit Court fee on the} enhanced compensation amount.^{The respondent no. 1 to 3 shall} deposit the errhanced compensation^{amount withina period of} eight (8) weeks lrom today.

¶115

3 1. Pending misceilaleous applications^{if any shallstandciosed.}

¶116

Sd/-P.PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPYII

I .-.-

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The chairman Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum- fiVll Additional chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

¶122

One CC to Sri THATHOLU SHYAM KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC]3. One CC to Sri A. RAMAKRTSHNA REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl 4. One CC to Sri CHALLA AJAY KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies

SP \ v

HIGH COURT

DATED:0810912023

COMMON JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.2508 OF 2017 AND

¶130

MACMA No.129 OF 2020

¶131

l rtE S T4 16.
(
A
.l- 6'r
c
1 5 0E[ 2623 oz
A
* c.)) *
lr.{ctl

¶132

ALLOWING THE MACMA No.2508 OF 2017 AND

¶133

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA No.I29 OF 2020

¶134

)Z
r5

¶135

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶136

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶137

PRESENT

¶138

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA^ALISHETTY

¶139

MOTOR ACCI DENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS^{APPEAL Nos: 2508 OF 2017} AND 129 0F 2020

¶140

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL^{No: 2508 OF 2017} Between:

¶141

Yada Shilpa, Wo.Late Yada Ashwin kumar, R/o.6-646711,^{Gandhi Nagar Behind old} Praga Tools, Secunderabad.

¶142

...AppellanURespondent No.5

¶143

AND

¶144

Yada Lingamma, Wo.Late Yada Sekhar, R/o.6-6-37/18,^{KavadigudaMain} Road, Secunderabad.

¶145

...Respondent No.1/Petitioner

¶146

G.Bhramaiah, s /o.Pichaiah, R/o.Door No.4/131,^{Gupta NagarBadvel,} Kadapa District.

¶147

Bajaj Allianz General lnsurance Company Ltd,^{Rep by its Divisional Manager,} Divisional Office, Geplaza, Airport Road, Yerwada,^{Pune 411 006.}

¶148

Mrs. C.M.S. Associates, Rep by its T.Sangameshwar^{Rao, R/o.Plot.No.135,} SBI Colony, Gandhi Nagar, New Bakaram,^Hyderabad.

¶149

Tata AIG General lnsurance Company^{ltd, Rep by its Manager, PO Box} No.9407, Chakalamide Post Office, Mumbai4OO^093.

¶150

...Respondents

¶151

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS^{APPEAL No: 129 ot 2020}

¶152

Between:

¶153

Yada Lingamma, Wo.Late Yada Sekhar,^{R/o.6-6-37/18,Kavadiguda MainRoad,} Secunderabad, Rep by GPA Holder S.^{Ravinder, R/o Mylargadda,Sithafalmandi,} Secunderabad.

¶154

...AppellanUPetitioner

¶155

AND

¶156

G.Bhramaiah, S/o.Pichaiah, R/o.Door No,4i 131, Gupta Nagar Badvel, Kadapa District.

¶157

Bajaj Allianz General lnsurance Company Ltd, Rep by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Geplaza, Airport Road, Yenarada,^pune 41.1 006.

¶158

Mrs. C.M.S. Associates, Rep by its T.Sangameshwar Rao, R/o.plot.No.135, SBI Colony, Gandhi Nagar, New Bakaram, Hyderabad.

¶159

Tata AIG General lnsurance Company ltd, Rep by its Manager, pO Box No.9407, Chakalamide Post Office, Mumbai-400 093.

¶160

Yada Shilpa, Wo.Late Yada Ashwin kumar, R/o.6-6467/1 , Gandhi Nagar Behind old Praga Tools, Secunderabad.

¶161

... Respondents/Respondents

¶162

Apqeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicres Act against the order and decree in M.v.o.P.No.589 of 2010 dated^'16.05.20 17 on the fii-e of the court of the chairman Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum- XXVII Additional chief Judge, city Civil Court, Secunderabad.

¶163

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 case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri r sHyAM KUMAR, Advocate for the Appellant No.250B of 2017 and Respondent No.5 in MACMA No.129 of 2020 and ot sri CHALLA AJAY KUMAR, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 in MACMA No.250B oF 2017 & for the Appeilant in MACMA No.t2g or 2020 & sri A. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, Counsel for the Respondent No.3 in MACMA No.250B of 2017 & Respondent No.2 in MACMA No. l29 of 2020.

¶164

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶165

That the Motor Accident crvil Miscellaneous Appeal No.250g ol 2017 be and hereby is Allowed and MACMA No.129 of 2020 be and hereby is parily Allowed;

¶166

That the compensation amount be and hereby is enhanced from Rs.20,00,0001 to Rs.27,68,0001 subject to payment of deficit court fee on the enhanced compensation amount;

¶167

That the wife of the deceased i.e respondent No.5 in MACMA No.129 of 2020 and appellant in MACMA No.2508 ot 2017 is entifled to 70% of the compensation and the mother of the deceased i.e the appeilant in MACMA No.129 of 2020 is entitled to balance 30%;

¶168

That the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment;

¶169