Partly allowed

The Icici Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd v. K.Narotham Reddy

Telangana HC21 Sept 2023MACMA/3328/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two common appeals regarding a motor accident claim. The Court held that the insurance company remains liable to pay compensation despite the vehicle being under the control of APSRTC. The court enhanced the compensation awarded to the injured petitioner from Rs. 3.2 lakhs to Rs. 5.01 lakhs.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 5,01,440 with interest at 7.5% per annum directed to be paid by the insured owner and insurance company.

The Icici Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

THURSDAY ,THE^{TWENTY FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY THREE}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWARRAO}

¶5

MACMA NOs:^{1505 0F 201 3 AND 3328oF 2014}

¶6

MACMA NO 3328^{oF 2014}

¶7

AppealUnderSectionlT3ofMotorVehiclesActagainsttheorderanddecree ino.P.No.2252of2008dated03/06/2013onthefileoftheCourtoftheChairman Motor Accident^{claimsTribunal-cum-XVlI Additionalchief Judge-cum-lll Additional} Metropolitan Sessions^{Judge, Hyderabad'}

¶8

Between:

¶9

K. Narotham^{Reddy, S/o. K Butchi Reddy'} Labourer, R/o.^{H.No.4-7-841412'} Hayathnagar^{Village and MAndal, Ranga Reddy} District.

¶10

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

l. N. Prasad^{Goud,S/o. N Yadagiri, OwnerofAPSRTC Hired Bus No aP-29-} TA-3721 R/o.^{H.No.1-26,Luslarguda Village'hayathnagarMandal' Ranga} ReddY DistricrtDistricrt

¶13

ReddY DistricrtDistricrt

¶14

Z. ine-iCfCf^{Lombard General lnsurance Company Limited'Rep} '^{by its} Manager, Chaitanyapuri,^{Saroornagar Mandal, R R District'}

¶15

s. ihu ipsnrC,^{Rep., 'by its lfranagingDirector' RTC Cross Roads'} Musheerabad' Hyderabad

¶16

...RES'.NDENTS/RESP.NDENTS

¶17

Counsel for the^{Appellant:MR. B' VENKATREDDY} Counsel for^{the Respondent No'2: MR' N' MOHAN KRISHNA} Counsel for^{the Respondent No'2: MR' T' SRINIVAS} Counsel forthe^{Respondent No'1: NONE APPEARED}

¶18

MACMA^N o^33280F2014

¶19

Appeal Under^{Section173of Motor VehiclesAct againstthe order and decree tn} M.V.o.P.No.2252ofZOo8dated03/06/2013onthefileoftheCourtoftheChairmanMotor Accident claims^{Tribunal-cum-xvllAdditionalchief Judge-cum-lll Additional Metropolitan} Sessions^{Judge, HYderabad.}

¶20

Between:

¶21

The lclcl^{Lombard General} 'ManJal,^{lnsurance Co'Ltd' Rep by its Manager} R'R District^{(Pol-icy Co'"' Note} .-No' Chaitanyapuri,^Suroornug;' PCVH.775g124Valid^{from \l-l-ioOato 16-7-2009 Policy taken at Hyderabad'}

¶22

...APPELLANT/R-2

¶23

AND

¶24

1 K. Narotham iirrrtt n"o"r,^{Reddy, Village S/o and K. Mandal, Buchi Reddy, R'R'District Occ Labourer' Rlo 11"t respondent declared H'No'4-7-841412'as} maior vide lR.No.438/2009^{dt. 251112010)}

¶25

2 'ii:';;; 'G;;;, a/"n Yadasiri, occ bwner or APSRT6 Hire Bus bearing i'i"'np-ze in^{3721, No H.ruol-zo,Luskerguda, (v)' Hayath Nagar Mandal'} R.R.Dist.

¶26

R.R.Dist.

¶27

S. ih" APSnfC,^{Rep by its ManagingDirector'MusheerbadRTC "X" Road'} Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER^{& R1' 3}

¶28

Counsel for^{the Appellant:MR' N' MOHANKRISHNA}

¶29

Gounsel^{fortheRespondent No'1: MR' B' VENKATREDDY}

¶30

Counsel for^{the Respondent No'3: MR' T' SRINIVAS}

¶31

Counsel for^{the Respondent No'2: NONE APPEARED}

¶32

The Court made^{the following: COMMONJUDGMENT}

¶33

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR^RAO

¶34

M.A.C.M.A No. 1505 OF 2013

¶35

¶36

M.A.C.M.A No.3328 OF 2014

¶37

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶38

Both these Motor Acciderrts Civil^{MiscellaneousAppeals} are being disposed of by^{way of} this^{common judgment as both} thcse appeals are directed against the award^{dt.03.06.2013 in} M.V.O.P.No.2252 ol 2008^passed by^{the Chairman,Motor} Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XVll^{Additior-ralChicf Judge-} cum-lll Additional Metropolitan^{SessionsJudge, H1'dcrabad} (tlcrcinafter rcferred to as'lhc Tribunal').

¶39

Appellant/ pctitioner^{has challenged the a'a'ard being aggricved} b-t the quantum of compcnsatron^{and prayed to enI-rance the} same. In M.A.C.M.A.No.3328^{of 2014, the Appellant/[nsurance} Company had challenged the^{Ar,vard by contending that the} crimc vehicle was under^the control^{of APSRI'C hence,APSRTC} is onlv liable to pay compensa[ion,^{and not the lnsurance} Company. Accordingly,^{prayed to set aside the order passed} bi' thc Tribunal.

¶40

RR N,] COMMON I UDGMENT^IN MACMA No.1505 of 2013 & 3328 Ot 2014

¶41

¶42

3 For convenience, the facts in M.A.C.M.A No. 1505 ol 2013 are discussed hereunder, and the parties hereinafter u,ill be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal

¶43

4 Brief facts of the case are that on 27 .O9.2OO8 at about 5. 15 p.m. when the petitioner was going on a motorcycle as a pillion rider along with one Janga Reddy as the rider of the motorcyclc, and when they reached the market yard, Koheda, one APSRTC hired bus bearing No.AP-29TA-3721 came in a rash and negligent manner driven by its driver and hit the motorcycle, as a result, the petitioner lell down and received injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Yasl.roda Super Specialty Hospital, Hyderabad. He was treated in the said Hospital from 27.O9.2OO8 to 08.10.2008, and operations were conducted and screws were fixed. A case was also registered against the driver of the bus. He also sustained urinary problem and there is a permanent disability Accordingly, filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.5,OO,OO0/-.

¶44

Before the Tribunal, respondent No. 1 remained ex parte. Whereas respondent No.2/lnsurance Company filed a counter denying the averments of the petition. They mainly contended that the vehicle was under the control of ApSRTC. :s&- ..- -

¶45

RRN,] COMMON ]UDGMENT IN MACMA No.1505 of 2013 & 3328 OF 2014

¶46

¶47

Hence, APSRTC (respondent No.3) rS only liable to pay compensation. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the claim petltlon

¶48

6 Respondent No.3/APSRTC filed a counter denying the avermcnts of the petition. They mainly contended that there was no valid driving license to the rider of the motorcycle and the bus driver. If any accident occurs, the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle are liable to pay compensation, not the hirer. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the claim petition

¶49

7 To prove his case, on behalf of the petitioner, PWs. I to 5 were examincd and marked Exs.Al to A1B. On behalf of respondent No.2, RW.1 was examined and marked Ex.Bl and 82

¶50

8 After considering the claim and the coun ters filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3, and on evaluation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition against respondent No.3, still, the same is partly allowed awarding compensation of Rs.3,20,000/- in favour^of petitioner with interest at 7.5o/o per arlnum payable by the respondenl Nos. I and 2^jointly and severally. Dissatisfied^with the quantum of compensation, the^petitioner liled^{the present} appeal.

¶51

¶52

RIiN,] COMMON]UOGMTNTIN MACMA No.1505 of 2013 & 3328 O, 2014

¶53

9 Heard both sides. Perused the record.

¶54

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had sustained (i) fracture of by-lateral superior and inferior Pubic ramisubluxation of symphysis pubic (ii) fracture of right hip and rupture of Urethra. He further submitted that as per the evidence of PW.3,Orthopaedic Surgeon, Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad, the petitioner's hip for lracture was operated and fixed with rods and screws. He suffers from 2Oo/u disability as per Ex.A7, and the petitioner's Ieg is shortened 2 c.ms., because of the pelvic fracture and the Iength could not be adjusted and the petitioner had to undergo further operation. However, the Tribunai has not properly appreciated the injuries and future loss of earnings witin a 2Ool, disability calculated.

¶55

1O(1) Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following judgments:

¶56

i) in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Rajenderi Devi & otherst

¶57

ii) in Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd., and another2

¶58

iii) in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Kulsum and others3

¶59

'zozo1a1t.c.n.^:ss

¶60

')2015(6)^{Recent Apex Judgmenrs(R.A.J.)1}

¶61

¶62

¶63

RRN,J COMMON ] UOGMENT IN MACMA No.1505 of 2013 & 3328 OF 2014

¶64

Accordingly, prayed to allou, the appeal

¶65

I t. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/lnsurance Compan_1 has c<>ntended that the Tribunal failed to see that the hired bus did not have a valid permit at the time ol the accident and the driver of the bus was not authorised to drive the same without a valid permit to ply on the road. He further contended that thc Tribunal failed to see that the vehicle was under APSRTC's control. Therefore, APSRTC is only liable to pal compensation. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the appeal lilcd b.r' the petitioners

¶66

t2 As regards the contention of learned counsel for respondent No.2/lnsurance Company that they are not liable to pay compensation as the hired bus did not have a valid permit at the time of the accident and the driver of the bus was not authorised to drive the same without a valid permit to ply on thc roads. Hc lurther contended that the Tribunal failed to see that the vehicle was under APSRTC's control. Therefore, APSRTC is only liable to pay compensation. To substantiate thc same, Manager, Legal ln respondent No.2 I n su rance Company, was examined as RW. 1. hr his cross-examination,

¶67

':ott^nctzrqs

¶68

¶69

RRN,] COMMON IUOGMENI IN MACMA No.1505 of 2013 & 3328 O[ 2014

¶70

he admitted that the bus was insured with respondent No.2 and the policy was in force as on the date of the accident.

¶71

At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (lsr Supra) wherein it was held as under:

¶72

The liabilitl, b puy Lontpcn.\ution i: busad on u stututory prtnniotl. Compulsory in.surancc of the^yehitle x neuntfor the bene./it of the third parties. The liability t{ the owner lo hot e contpulsory insurance is only in regard lo third party and not to the property. Once the vehicle is insured, lhe owner 05 u'cll os un1, othcr par.vtt tan 2tc the t'chit.lc u,ith lhe consenl of llrc rnvner. Sectirltr 116 d thc ltt doc.t l()t pr(,,ida th(t ary) person^y'ho uses the yehiclc indcpentlcntly, a separale insurance policy should he takatt. The purposc rf compulsorlt in.sunntce in tha Act has been enoctcd^y'ith an ohjecl to od|cur<:c socioljustice. '

¶73

l'ha luw luil thtt rn Kulstut \ cLt.\c lsulru).rt1uurcll, upplies lo the facl.;^{of lhe prcsenttu.ra}

¶74

ln this view of the natter, the uppea! is allov,ed and the sum au,arded by the MACT will now be payable only b, the lnsurance Company with interesl at thestulel rutc, tlithin u [rcriul of thre( nutttths fi-on lotka,.

¶75

Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon in the

¶76

CASE of Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C (2nd supra) wherein it

¶77

was held as under:

¶78

Ouner of uehtcle grutng the uehicle on lease or giuirLg it on hrre, the uehicle met uith occident, the Insurer is liable to make payment of contpensatrcn.

¶79

On a curefitl unoly:is o/ thc print.iplt.s.stulatl in thc /ot.r:gttnN cases, il is.fttund thut tharc is tt common thrctuj thtrl tht ptt..ron in

¶80

RRN,]

¶81

¶82

COMMON JUDGMENT^IN MACMA No.1505 of 2013 & 3328 OF 2014

¶83

po.\c.\ston o/ the vchic'lc undtr lhe hyltothecation agreemenl^hos bccn trcotcd o.t lhe ov'ner. Necdless lo emphasise, if lhe^vehicleis insurctl, thc m:urer is bound to indentnifi, unlas.s lherc is^violalbn of tha rtt m: ol tltt ytlit'1 tuttfur^v hich lha^{in:urer cun} ';eak

¶84

ln view o/'the aforesaid discussktn,^{we holdlhal registered} ov'ner. insurer as u'ell as KSR'|C^{v,ould be liableto make the} p(lnrcnl of ttttnpansulktn iointll und scverolly b^{the claimdnt</sup> ttttrl tht' kSR7⁽ in larnt.s rt/ lhc^{lcct.;au+ree fitanl enteredinto wilh} thc rcgi.';larcd ottncr ttould be enlilled^{to recover lhe amount paid} lo thc claimunl.s.lrom thc oY)ner^as slipulaled^{in tlrc agreemenlor} _fi'otn^{the insur<'r}}

¶85

Learned counsel for the^{petitioneralso relied upon in the} case of U.P. State Road Transport^{Corporation(3rd supra)} $,herein it was held as under

¶86

.,lpurt /j'ont thc uhrstc. lcurnacl^{crturt-scl./ir Insuronce} ('ompuny'cottltl rutl poinl out ot1'legul etnbargo which may give right lo it to dcny the^pas,menl o/ compensation.^{Thus,legallyor} otherwise tiubilily has to be .fastened^{on the Insurance Company} onlt'.

¶87

l-. ln tttc liKht ol thc ufutrtuid^{tli:;ttt.s.\ion. thc Appealsol lhc} ('u'poralion ore ullov,ed. Thc impugned iudgmenl and order ltusvd^{hy I lighL'ourt quu the ()orporttionure hereby set oside} und quashed and^u,e hold^{that lhe lnsurance L'omponywouldbe} liablc to pay the amounl of^{cttmpensution lo the claimanls-}

¶88

Apart from the above, the^{learned counsel forthe} lnsurance Company could^{not point out any legal embargo} which may^give it the right to^{deny the compensation payment.} As such, this Court, u,ith due^{respecttothe abovesaid} principles taid in the^{said judgments,is of the consideredview}

¶89

¶90

RRN, ] COMMON ] UDGMEN I^IN MACMA No 1505 of 2013 & 3328 OF 2014

¶91

that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim pctition against respondent No.3, directing respondents No. 1 and 2 to pay compensation.

¶92

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contendcd that Tribunal has not properly appreciated the injuries, and future loss of earnings with 2Oo disability has not been calculated The future operation is estimated at Rs. 1.5 lakhs as per Ex.AB, but the Tribunal did not grant any amount under this head He further contended that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the petitioner is suffering from permanent disability from the date of the accident and ought to have granted loss of earnings at Rs.36,O0O/S claimed, but the Tribunal has granted only Rs. 1 1,000/- during the treatment pcriod

¶93

As seen in the impugned order, the Tribunal rightly considered the petitioner's income @ Rs.3,OO0/-per month as the petitioner failed to prove his avocation. To this, 4O% is to be added towards future prospects as per the decision of the Hontrle Supreme Court in National lt:rsurarl.ce Compang Ltd. Vs. Pranag Sethia as the petitioner was aged 1B years. The annual income of the deceased, including future prospects, would come to Rs.5O,40O/- (Rs.3,O0O/- + 4Ook x

¶94

" 1zor11 ro scc oso

¶95

RRN,] COMMON ]UDGMENT^IN MACMA No.1505 of 2013 & 3328 OF 2014

¶96

¶97

l2l. The appropriate^{multiplier as per the decision of Sarlc} Verma Vs. Delhi^{TransportCorporations is " 18".}

¶98

The Tribunal^{au'ardedRs.1,00,000/- under the head} disability without^{applyingmultiplier method.The petitioner} sulfcrcd 20'7n^{pcrmanentdisability.Thus, the total loss of} future income due^{to disability would come to Rs. 1,81,44O/-} (Rs.50,400/^- x 18 x^2Oo/ol.

¶99

The tribunal^{has rightlyawarded Rs.1,29,OOO/- towards} medical expenses;^{Rs.8O,OOO/- towards pain and suffering} and Rs,11,OOO/-^{towards loss of earnings.The Tribunal did} not award any amount^{tow'ards future medical expenses' At} rhis^{jurrcturc, lcarncd counscl for the petitionerfiled a} Medical certilrcate dt.11.O9.2021^{issued by the} Superintendent,^{EWA Multi Speciality Hospital, Hyderabad,} stating that the^{petitioner is sulferingfrom CKDand Anaemia} and he is on^{Dialysisweekly3 times since4 years from April} 2018. Learned^{counsel for the petitioner filed a certificate} dt.O4.12.2019^{issued by the EWA Multi Speciality Hospital,} Hyderabad, stating^{that thepetitioner was onregular} Hemodialysis^{Diatysis due to Renal failure. The causeof Renal} failure was^{previous Hx of trauma to the pelvis where the}

¶100

t {zoo9) o scc rzr

¶101

10 RRN,] COMMON JUDGMEN^{T IN} MACMA No.1505 of 2013 & 3328 OF 2014

¶102

patient developed loss of control over Urination and developed chronic stricture vaetna. Later on, was regular Hemodialysis under the Nephrologist. As it has been contended by the petitioner that he is suffering from CKD and Anaemia and he is on Diaiysis weekly 3 times since 4 years from April 20 18, this Court is inclined to award a sum of Rs. 1,OO,OOO/- (Rs. One lakh onlyf towards future medical expenses.

¶103

In all, the petitioner is entitied to Rs.5,Ol,44Ol- (Rs. Five lakh, one thousand, four hundred and forty only). Though the claimcd amount is Rs.5,OO,O00/-, invoking the principle oljust compensation, and in view of the law laid dovvn by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in RaJesh us. Rajbir Singhe , and in a catena of decisions, this Court is empou,'cred t<-r grant compensation beyond the claimed amount. However, the petitioner/ appellant shall pay the delicit Court fee on the enhanced compensation

¶104

Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A No.15O5 of 2Ol3 filed by the petitioner is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.3,20,000/- to Rs.S,O1,44O/- (Rs. Five lakh, one thousand, four hundred and forty only) u,ith interest aL 7.Soh per annum from the date ol petition till the date of realisation. This appeal is dismissed

¶105

" MANU/SC/0480/2013

¶106

RR N,] COMMON JUDGMT^{NT IN} MACMA No.1505 of 2013 & 3328^{oF 2014}

¶107

¶108

against respondent No.3. Respondents^{No.l and 2are} dircctcd to deposit the said amount^{[ogether with costs and} interest within two months from^{the date of receipt of a copy of} this order after deducting the amount, if any,^already deposited. Upon such deposit, the^{petitioneris permittedto} withdraw the entire amount. There^{shall be no order as to} costs.

¶109

M.A.C.M.A No.3328 OF 2O14:

¶110

In view of my findings^{in M.A.C.M'A No.1505of 20 13} filed by the petitioner, this^{M.A.C.M.A.No.3328 of 20 14 filed} bv the Insurance Compan-t,^{is hcrcb-t' disrnissed.}

¶111

As a sequel, miscellaneous^{applicatiot,s,if any pending,} shall stand closed.

SD/- A.V.S. PRASAD

ASSISTANT R GISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTIO OFFICER

To,

1 The Chairman, MACT-cum-XVll Additional Chief Judge-cum-lll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (With Records)

¶118

2 One CC to Mr. B. VENKAT REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]. J One CC to Mr. N. MOHAN KRISHNA, Advocate [OPUC]. 4 One CC to Mr. T. SRINIVAS, Advocate [OPUC]. 5 Two CD Copies

KP/JAK

HIGH COURT

DAfED:211O912023

COMMON JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.1505 of 2013 AND MACMA No.3328 of 2014

¶125

..<br>7
c i
-j'
* oEspATc

¶126

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA 1505 OF 2013 AND DISMISSING THE MACMA 3328 OF 2014 WITHOUT COSTS

¶127

CJN
\ -\4'
<br>

¶128

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

¶129

THURSDAY ,THE TWENry FIRST DAY^{OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶130

PRESENT

¶131

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU^RAJESHWARRAO

¶132

MACMA NOs: 1505 OF 2013 AND 3328 OF²⁰¹⁴

¶133

Between:

¶134

K. Narotham Reddy, S/o. K.^{Butchi Reddy, Labourer,R/o. H.No.4'7-B4l4l2'} Hayathnagar Village and MAndal,^{Ranga Reddy District.}

¶135

...APPELLANT/PETITION^ER

¶136

AND

¶137

N. Prasad Goud, S/o. N. Yadagiri,^{Ownerof APSRTC Hired BusNo. aP-29-} TA-3721 R/o. H.No. 1-26, Luskarguda^{Village, hayathnagar Mandal,Ranga} Reddy Districrt

¶138

The lClCl Lombard General^{lnsuranceCompany Limited,Rep., by its} Manager, Chaitanyapuri, Saroornagar^{Mandal,R.R. District.}

¶139

The APSRTC, Rep., by its^{ManagingDirector, RTCCrossRoads,} Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶140

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶141

MACMA NO 3328 0F 2014

¶142

Between:

¶143

The ICICI Lombard General^{lnsuranceCo.Ltd,Rep by its Manager,} Chaitanyapuri, Saroornagar^{Mandal,R.R.District (Policy CoverNoteNo.} PCVH.7759124 Valid from^{17-7-2008to 16-7-2009 Policy taken at Hyderabad'}

¶144

...APPELLANT/R-2

¶145

AND

¶146

K. Narotham Reddy, S/o K.^{Buchi Reddy,Occ Labourer, RloH.No.4-7-B4l4l2'} Hayathnagar, Village and Mandal,^{R.R.District.(1"t respondentdeclared as} major vide lA.No.438/2009 dt.^{2511 12010)}

¶147

N. Prasad Goud, S/o N. Yadagiri,^{Occ Ownerof APSRTC Hire Bus bearing} No. AP-29-TA-3721,No H.No.1-26,^{Luskerguda, (V), Hayath Nagar Mandal,} R.R.Dist.

¶148

The APSRTC, Rep^{by its ManagingDirector, MusheerbadRTC"X" Road'} Hvderabad'

¶149

...RESpoNDENTs/pETtrtoNER^{& Rl, 3}

¶150

Appeal Under Section^'173 of Motor^{Vehicles Act againstthe order and decree} in o.P.No.2252 0f 2008 dated 03/06/2013^{0n the file of the courtof the chairman}

¶151

Motor Accident claims^{Tribunal-cum-XVll Additionalchief Judge-cum-lllAdditional} Metropolitan Sessions^{Judge,Hyderabad.}

¶152

ORDER: This appeal coming^{on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of} appeal, the Judgment and^{Decree of the Lower court and the materialpapers in the} case and upon hearing^{the argumentsof Mr. B. VenkatReddy, Advocatefor the} Appellant and for Respondent^{No.1 in MACMA 3328 oI 2014 and of Mr. N. Mohan} Krishna ,Adovate for the^{Respondent No.2 and for the appellant in MACMA 3328of} 2014 and of Mr. T.^{Srinivas for Respondent No.3 and for Respondent No.3 in} MACMA 3328 ot^2014.

¶153

This Court doth Order^{and Decree as follows:}

¶154

MAC MA 3328 of 2O14-^{That this courtdothJudgmentand decree that the} MACMA 3328 of 2014^{filed by the insurancecompany be and hereby is} dismissed.

¶155

MACMA 1505 of 201 3:-

¶156

That this court doth^{Judgmentand decreethat MACMA 1505/2013 be and} hereby is^partly allowed^{by enhancingthe compensation amountawardedby} the tribunal from^{Rs.3,20,000/-to Rs.5,01,4401with interestal 7'5o/opet} annum from the date of^{petitiontill the date of realization;}

¶157

That this appeal^{is dismissed against respondent No'3;}

¶158

That respondent^{Nos.1 and 2 are directed to depositthe said amount together} with costs and interest within^{two monthsfrom the date of receipt of a copyof} this order after deducting^{the amount,if any, already deposited;}

¶159