Partly allowed

Smt. Shahnaz Begum v. T.S.R.T.C.

Telangana HC13 Dec 2023MACMA/617/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced the compensation awarded to the deceased's dependents from Rs. 11,59,000 to Rs. 11,65,200 by adjusting notional income and interest. The punishment aspect of the Motor Vehicles Act was considered, but the claim was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Compensation raised from Rs. 11,59,000 to Rs. 11,65,200 with interest; TSRTC directed to deposit amount.

Smt. Shahnaz Begum Vs T.S.R.T.C. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁸³¹

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE^{THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICE LAXMINARAYANA ALISHETTY}

¶6

M.A.C.M.A NOS.: 617 O^{F 2022AND 114 0F 2023}

¶7

M.A.C.M.A NO:617 OF 2022;

¶8

Appeal filed under section^{173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated} 20.04.20i2^passed in M.V.O.P.No.2421^{of 2018on the file of the Motor Accident} Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief^{Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad'}

¶9

Between:

¶10

'1 . Smt. Shahnaz Begum, Wo. late Abdul Hameed, aged about 43^years, Occ' Household,

¶11

Rukhsar Fatima, D/o^{late Abdul Hameed, aged about 27 yeats, Occ Student'}

¶12

Abdul Junaid, S/o.^{late Abdul Hameed' aged about26 years, Occ Siudent'}

¶13

Abdul Fareed, S/o.^{late Abdul Hameed, aged about 24 years,Occ Student'}

¶14

Waseema Fatima,^{D/o. late Abdul Hameed, aged about 19 years'Occ'} Student

¶15

Sameera Fatima,^{D/o. late AbdulHameed, aged about 17 years'Occ'} Student,^{(ClaimantNo.6 is being minor, rep by her natural mother Cum} guardian i.e. claimant No.1 Smt.^{Shahnaz Begum)} All are R/o. H.^{No.19-4-279tBlzOlN1, Opp- Masjid-E-Omer Farooq' Nawab} Sahab Kunta, Jahanuma,^{Charminar, Hyderabad'}

¶16

...CLAIMANTS/APPELLANTS

¶17

AND

¶18

T.S.R.T.C., rep. by^{its VC and MD, Bus Bhavan,RTCX Roads'} Musheerabad, HYderabad.

¶19

Depot Manager,^{T.S.R.T.CHCUDepot, Hyderabad}

¶20

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶21

Counsel for the Appellants:^{SRI T. VISWARUPA CHARY}

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents:^{SRI THOOM SRINIVAS,S'C' FORT'S'R'T'C'}

¶23

M.A.C.M.A. NO: 114 OF 2023:

¶24

Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 2O.O4.2O22 passed in M.V.O.P-No.2421 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

¶25

Betvrreen:

¶26

T.S.R.T.C., Rep., by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, RTC X Roads, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 500 020.

¶27

The Depot Manager, TSRTC, HCU Bus Depot, Hyderabad

¶28

...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS

¶29

AND

¶30

Shahnaz Begum, W/o. Late Abdul Hameed, Aged 39 years, Occ. House Hold, residents of H.No. 19-4-279lBl2OlAi 1, Opp. Maqid - E - Omar Farooq Nawab Sahab Kunta, Jahanuma, Charminar, Hyderabad.

¶31

2- Rukhsar Fatima, D/o. Late Abdul Hameed, Aged about 23 years, Occ. Student, residents of H.No. 19-4-279lBt2OtAt 1. Opp. Masjid - E - Omar Farooq Nawab Sahab Kunta, Jahanuma, Charmrnar, Hyderabad.

¶32

Abdul Junai, S/o. Late Abdul Hameed, Aged about 22 years, Occ. Student, residents of H.No. 19-4-279lBl20lAl1 Opp. Masjid - E - Omar Farooq Nawab Sahab Kunta, Jahanuma, Charminar, Hyderabad.

¶33

Abdul Fareed, S/ o. Late Abdul Hameed Aged about 20 years, Occ. Student, residents of H.No. 194-279lBl2OlN1, Opp. Masjid - E - Omar Farooq Nawab Sahab Kunta, Jahanuma, Charminar, Hyderabad.

¶34

Waseema Fatima, D/o. Late Abdul Hameed, Aged about 15 years, Occ. Student, residents of H.No. 19-4-27918,/20/A/1, Opp. Masjid - E - Omar Farooq Nawab Sahab Kunta, Jahanuma, Charminar, Hyderabad.

¶35

Sameera Fatima, D/o. Late Abdul Hameed, Aged about 13 Years, Occ. Student, residents of H.No. 19-4-279lBl2OlN 1, Opp. Masjid - E - Omar Farooq Nawab Sahab Kunta, Jahanuma, Charminar, Hyderabad. (Respondents 5 & 6 are minors represented by their mother and natural guardian, Respondent No. 1 )

¶36

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

¶37

lA NO: 3 OF 2023 in M.A.C.M.A.No.11412 023:

¶38

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 to grant stay of execution of the Judgment and Decree of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-The Court of the Chief Judge, City, Civil Court. Hyderabad, dated 20.O4.2022 made in MVOP. No. 2421 of 2018.

¶39

lA NO: 4 OF 2023 in M.A^{.C.M.A.No.1'1412023:}

¶40

Between:

¶41

1 Smt. Shahnaz Begum, W/o.^{late Abdul Hameed, aged about 43 years, Occ} Household,

¶42

2 Rukhsar Fatima, D/o. late Abdul Hameed, aged^{about 27 years,Occ.Student,} 3 Abdul Junaid, S/o. late Abdul Hameed, aged^{about26 years, Occ. Student,} 4 Abdul Fareed, S/o. late Abdul Hameed, aged^{about 24 years, Occ- Student,} 5 Waseema Fatima, D/o. late AMul Hameed,^{aged about 19 years,Occ-} Student

¶43

6 Sameera Fatima, D/0. late Abdul Hameed, aged^{about 17 years, Occ} Student,

¶44

All are R/o. H. No.19-4-279tBl2OtN1 ,^{Opp. Masjid-E-OmerFarooq,Nawab} Sahab Kunta, Jahanuma, Charminar,^Hyderabad.

¶45

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS^{1 TO 6}

¶46

AND

¶47

T.S.R.T.C., rep. by its VC and MD, Bus Bhavan,^{RTCX Roads,} Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶48

Depot Manager, T.S.R.T.C HCU^{Depot, Hyderabad.}

¶49

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶50

Petition under section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the Highcourt may be pleased to} vacating lnterim stay order, dated 3O-O1-2O23^{passed in l.A. No.3 of 2019 in} MACMA No.'1 14 of 2023.

¶51

Counsel for the Appellantsⁱⁿ appeal No. 114 ot'ioz3 : sRl THOoM SRlNlvAS,^{s.c. FoR T's'R'T'c'}

¶52

Counsel for the Respondents in appeal No. 114 ot 2023:

¶53

:SRl T. VISWARUPA^CHARY

¶54

The Court delivered the following:^{COMMON JUDGMENT}

¶55

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY M.A.C.M.A. Nos, 6L7 of2022 and Ll4 of 2023

¶56

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶57

M.A.C.M.A.No.€;'17 of 2022 is an appeal by the claimants and M.A.C.M.A.No. 114 of 2023 is an appeal by rhe T.S.R.T.C. Considering the fact that these two appeals arises out of the same award dated 2O.O4.2O22 passed in M-V.O.p.No.242l ot 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum_the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for shorr "rhe Tribunal"), these tivo appeals are taken up together and decioed b_r, this cornmon juclgment.

¶58

fior thc sake of convenience, the parties hereinalter will be relerred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶59

The facts leading to hling o[ these two appeals are thar M.V.O.P.No.242l of 201g was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, l9gg, by the wifc and childre n of Abdul Hameed (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased,,), against respondents I and 2, claiming compr:nsation of Rs.2O,OO,OOO/_ for the death of the cleceased in an accidcnt. It is stated that on lO.09.2OlU betr,r,ccn 6:30 a.nr., and 7:O0 a.rn., while the deccascd, who was an auto driver, along with other auto drivers

¶60

¶61

was waiting for the passengers at Gachibowli, the^R.T.C.bu.r bearing No.AP-11-2-6172 d,riven try its driver in^{high speed and} rash and negligent manner, dashed him and^{others, as a result} of which, the deceased suffered^{grievous injuriesand died on} the spot. It is also stated that the^{deceasedwas hale and} heatthy, aged about 5O^{yearsand was earningRs. 14,00O/-per} month as auto drivcr. As the accident^{occurred due to rash and} negligent driving of the driver of^{the R.T.C bus, the claimants} hled the claim-petition against^{the T.S.R.T.C.}

¶62

The rcspondents {rled^{counter denying the mannerrn} which t-he accident took^{place inciuciing the age, avocaLion and} income of the deceased. tt^{isstated that the quantum of} compensaLion claimed^{is excessive and exorbitant and prayedto} dismiss the petition.

¶63

5 On the basis of the above^{pteadings,the Tribunal framed} the following issues:-

¶64

Whether the pleaded accident^{had occurred resulting in} death of Abdul Hameed. due^{to rash and negligent driving} of RTC bus bearing^{registration No. AP 112 6172, by its} drn,er?

¶65

¶66

Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, at <sup>/hat quantum and what is the liability of the respondents ?

¶67

To what relieP

¶68

In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws. I and 2 were examined and Exs.Al to A6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentar5r evidence was adduced.

¶69

The Tribunal, on conclusion of the pleadings and evidence placed on record by the parties, uid.e t|rle impugned award, held that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving o[ the drivcr of the R.T.C. bus, and accordingly, awarded an amount o[ Rs. I i,59,000/- with interest @ 9oh per annum from the date of pcrition till the date of realization to be paid by the respondents I and 2 jointly and severally. Challenging the same, the present appeals carne to be filed by the claimants as well as Lhe T.S.R.T.C.

¶70

Heard Sri T. Vishwarupa Chary, learned counsel for the claimants and Sri Thoom Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for the T.S.R.T.C.^perused the record. 9. Thc primary ground of challenge by the TSRTC in MACMA No.l l4 of 2023 u,as firsrly, so far as doubting the accident itself,

¶71

¶72

in which the deceased died and secondly, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶73

MACMA No.617 of 2022 is an appeal trled by the claimants seeking for enhancement of compensation. The primary ground seeking for enhancement of compensation was that the Tribunal had not awarded the compensation as claimed by the r:laimants and secondly, the Tribunal had erred in awarding, 10olo towards future prospccts of the deceased, so also the consorlium to lhe claimants.

¶74

During the hearing of appeals, the lcarned counsel for claimants submitted that the Tribunal erred in taking tJle income o[ the cleceased as Rs.1O,O0O/-, instead of Rs.l4,O0O/-. He further submitted that Tribunal errcd in applying multiplier '11', instead of '13', so also au,arding consortium.

¶75

As regards the contention of the appellant-TSRTC in MACMA No.1 14 o{ 2023 is concerned, it has been argued by t}re learned counsel for TSRTC that the Tribunal committed irregularity in holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driver o[ the RTC Bus without there being any evidence on record. He further con[ended that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated the fact whether there is any

¶76

)

¶77

contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, who was driving the auto at the time of accident and , as trying to overtake another auto near bus stop and in that process, the deceased lost his control and dashed the bus.

¶78

Coming to the lirst ground raised by TSRTC i.e., doubting the accident that occurred on lO.O9.20lg, this Court is of the opinion that TSRTC has failed to discharge its obligations so far as proving the conrcnrion raised by it by placing cogent, substantial material and evidence in support of its contention. TSRTC ncither examined any witness nor marked any document to support the ir contcntion.

¶79

PW.2-A. Prasad, who has been exarnined as an eye witness, has catcgorically stated that he noticed the accident, which occurrcd due to rash and negligent driving of the drive of the crime vehicle. Though p.W.2 was cross-examined, nothing was elicited to discredit his testimony. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal had rightly came to conclusion that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle.

¶80

In the absence o[ any material on the part of TSRTC, it is very hard to acccpt the contention of doubting the accident and

¶81

¶82

the accidental death of the deceased said to have taken place on 10.09.2008. The said ground raised by lhc appellant-TsRTc thus stands answered in the negative.

¶83

ln so far as the other contention raised b1, the learned counsel for TSRTC with regard to the quantum of monthly income of the deceased, the appellants/claimants, except claiming monthly income of the deceasecl as Rs.14,00O/- as auto driver based on Ex.A6 original drivinq liccnsc, have not placed arry material or evirlcnce bcfore thc'l'l-itrunal il oroof of monthly income of the deccased. ln thc al'-;cnce of ar-ry proof with regard to the income ol the deceascd, the MAO'| had erred in considering the monthly incomc ol lhe deccased as Rs.1O,OO0/- per month and thus, this Court i:r o[ the considered view that notional income ol thc dcceascci can be taken at Rs.8,OOO/- per month, taking into consrdcralion of his age, selfemployment as an auto driver and considcring lhc dependents numbering to six.

¶84

The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal had rightly taken the notional income o[ the deceased at Rs. 10,OOO/ - per month and in support of his contention, he relied upon the decrsion ol Flon'ble Supreme Court of India [from^{Karnataka(DB)iin Kalavatiaad others.,t. Nlitza Kaisar}

¶85

¶86

Baig and anotherr. In the said decision, the deceased working as lorry driver, whereas in the present case, the deceased was auto driver and therefore, the facts in the said decision and the facts in the present case are different and thus, the said decision relied upon by the learned counsel for claimants does not come to the aid of the claiman ts.

¶87

Coming ro rhe appeal in MACMA No.617 of 2022 filed by the claimants, on perusal of the entire award, considering the ag.'df th. dcceased as 53 years as on the date of accident, as per Ex.A6-original driving license, the Tribunal had added tO% of the income o[ the deceased tou,ards loss of future prospects. Since the dcccased was self-employed and was aged about 53 years as on the date o[ accident, in view of the paragraph_S9.4 of the decision of Hon,ble National Insuraace Co.Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi and others2, addition of 10% towards future prospects is just and proper and in considered opinion of this Court, no need to interfere with the impugned award in respect of awarding o[ loss of future prospects.

¶88

Since thc dcpendents of lhe deceased are six in number, one-fourth ol the income torvards personal and living expenses _t^{2022Lawsu't(SC)t I59} "{2{17) 16 scc 680

¶89

¶90

is to be deducted as per the decision o[ Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another3 and the same was deductcd tor.r'ards^personal expenses by the Tribunal and therefore, no need to^interlere with the said contention raised by the claimants.

¶91

With regard to the multiplier, as per thc^decisionof Hon'trle Supreme Court in Sarla Verma^(supra), the^Tribunal had rightly applied multiplier^'1 1' since as^{per Ex.A6original} driving license of the deceased, the age of the deccased^{was 53} years as on the date of accide nt and no error committed^{by the} Tribunerl as contended by'the leanted co'-tnsc!^{fcr'appellants.}

¶92

With regard to the au,ard of cotrsortium, thc^Hon'ble Supreme Court very recently in thc case of Anjali^{and othersvs} Lokendra Rathod and othersa decided on 06.12.2022,^taking into consideration the decision o[ the^{ConstitutionalBench in} the case of Sarala Verma (supra), as also in^{the case of Pranay} Sethi (supra), has awarded a sum of Rs.44,0OO/-^towardsloss of parental consortium. The said cnhancement^{and revision has} been done taking into considcration, risc in^{the cosl of cxpenses} and cost of living that has arisen during thc^{interveningperiod}

¶93

'^{(zoog)o scc rzr}

¶94

" 2023{1) ALD IO7(SC)

¶95

¶96

from the date of decisions of Sarla Verma and pranay Sethi. Moreover, the Honble Supreme Court itsetf in its Constitutional Bench decision had said that there shall be l0% hike on the compensation awarded under general damages every three years.

¶97

The contention raised by the learned counsel for claimants/appellants dcserves to be allowed to the above extent. This Courf is of the considered view that the claimants are also entitled to Rs. 15,00O/- towards loss o[ estate and Rs. 15,000/_ towards funeral expenses.

¶98

Conclusion:

¶99

In view of thc above, the compensation amount is recalculated as under

¶100

)

¶101

Sl.l{o,	Head	Compensation awarded
I	lncome	Rs.96,OOO/-pcrannum(RS.8,OOO/- rmonth
)	Futureprospects	RS.9,6OO/-{i.e.,l0olooftheincomel
3	Deductiontor(.ards personal nses	RS.26,4OO/-(i.e.,one-fourth of Rs.96 000 -+ Rs.9 @o
4	Total Incomc	Rs.79,2OOl-{i.e.,RS.96,OOO/-+ Rs9600 R2640O
5	Multipher	., s., t1
6	[,ossofdependencl	Rs.8,7l,2OOl- (i.e.,Rs.79,20Ol- x II
7	Compcnsatlon for loss of consortium Rs.44,OOO x6	Rs.2,64,OOO/-
8	[-ossoIcstate	Rs.r5,OOO/-
I	Funeralexpcnscs	Rs.r5,OOO/,
	Total com cnsalionIobe id	Rs.r 1,65,2OOl-

¶102

¶103

'I'he total compensation, payablc to the claimants is raised and enhanced from Rs.11,59,OO0/- to Rs.1l,65,2OOl-. The said compensation amount shall also carry interest @) 9ok per annum from the date of the claim petition made before the Tribunal till the date of the actual payment. The TSRTC is directed to ensure that the entire amount of compensation is depositcd within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this ordcr, duly adjusting the amount, if any, already paid by TSRTC. 'lhe ratio of apportionment of amounts among the appellants/ claimants and the permission to withdrawat shali be rire same in tcrms of the award passed by the Tribunal.

¶104

In the result, MACMA No.617 ot 2022 stands partly allowecl and MACMA No. 114 of 2023 stands disn-risseci. Thcre shall be no order as to costs.

¶105

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶106

Sd/.P.CH.NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

¶107

//TRUE^COPY//

¶108

SECTION^OFFICER

¶109

To, -t The Motor^{Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge' City Civil Court at} Hyderabad. One CC to^{Sri T. Viswarupa Chary, Advocate [OPUCI}

¶110

J one cc to^{sri Thoomsrinivas, sianding counselfor T S R T C [OPUC]} 4 Two CD CoPies

¶111

plp Ct(L

HIGH COURT

DATED: 13112i2O23

COMMON JUDGMENT

MACMA.Nos.617^{of 2022 AND} 114 0F 2(J23

¶116

1 E 5'l'l\T€ Oli
t; j,
z
.) ili
1$ [Pq ]'t1
*,//
.. i jr
-., . , (:.'l .?
\i- '-'.-',,

¶117

PARTLY ALLOWING^{THE APPEALNO.61712O22} AND DISMISSING^{THE APPEAL NO.11412023.} WITHOUT^COSTS

¶118

(T) ri'P.r"Vq
c,r

¶119

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

¶120

WEDNESDAY,^{THE THIRTEENTHDAYOF DECEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY THREE}

¶121

PRESENT

¶122

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE LAXMINARAYANA ALISHETTY}

¶123

c.M. s 17 2 A 11 OF 23

¶124

M.A.C.lU. ANO^{: 617 0F 2()22:}

¶125

Between:

¶126

Smt. Shahnaz^{Begum, Wo. late Abdul Hameed' aged about 43 years'Occ} Household,

¶127

Household,

¶128

Z nrf,nr^{Fatima, D/o. late Abdul Hameed' aged about 27 yearc'Occ Student'} s. AbJriJr""id,^{s/o lateAbdut Hameed, aged about26 years, occ.s^tudent.} 4. Abdul Fareed,^{S/o' late Abdul Harneed' aged about 24 yeals, occ' Studenl}

¶129

Waseema^{Fatima,D/o. late Abdul Haireed, aged about 19 years, occ'} StudentSameera

¶130

StudentSameera^{Fatima,D/o late AbdulHameed'aged about '17 years'Occ} Student,^{(ClaimantNo.6 i; #ingrnino'' rep uy her natural mother Cum} guardian i.e. claimant^{No l SmtShahnaz Begum)} All are R/o' H^{t.lo ts+.2zgllBtzotN1, opp. Masiid.E-omerFarooq,Nawab} Sahab Kunta,^{Jahanuma, Charminar, Hyderabad'}

¶131

...CLAI MANTS/APPELLANTS

¶132

ANO

¶133

1 T.S.R-T.C.,^{rep. by its VC and MD, Bus Bhavan' RTC X Roads'} Musheerabad,^HYderabad-

¶134

2 ;;;iM;;;d., f.s.n.r.c^{Hcu DePot, Hyderabad}

¶135

¶136

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶137

Appeal filed^{under Section173 of MotorVehicles Act against the award d.ated} 20.04.2022^{passed in M.V.O.P'No2421 of 2018 on the file of the MotorAccident} ;h*;iil,r'".1-cum-Chief^{Judge, City CivilCourt at Hyderabad'}

¶138

ORDER: This^{appeal comingon for hearingand upon perusing the grounds of} appeal, the Judgment^{rno oe"c,eeof the Lowlr Court and the materialpaper in the} case and upon^{hearingthe argumentsof Sri T' Viswa'uoa Chary' Advocate for the} Appellants^{and of Sri fnJoilS'ini'as' StandingCounsel for T S R T C 'for} Respondents.

¶139

Iri.A.C.M.A. NO:^114OF2O23i

¶140

Between:

¶141

T.S.R.T.C., Rep.,^{by its Vice Chairmanand ManagingDirector' Bus Bhavan'} RTC X Roads, Musheerabad,^{Hyderabad500020'}

¶142

The Depot Manager,^{TSRTC,HCUBus Depot, Hyderabad'}

¶143

...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS

¶144

AND

¶145

Shahnaz Begum,^{Wo. Late AbdulHameed,Aged39 years' Occ' House Hold'} residents of H.t.to.^{1g-4-27glBt2olN1, opp. Masjid- E. omarFarooqNawab} Sahab Kunta, Jahanuma,^{Charminar, Hyderabad'}

¶146

Rukhsar Fatrma,^{D/o. Late AbdulHameed,Aged about 23 Years' Occ'} Student, residents^{of H.No 1g4-27glBl21tNl,Opp Masjid - E - Omar} Farooq irlawab Sahab^{Kunta, Jahanuma, Charminar' Hyderabad'}

¶147

3 Abdul iunai,^{S/o, Late AbdulHameed,Aged about22Years' Occ Student'} residents of H.No.^{1g4-27gtBl2otN1' OppMasjid - E - Omar Farooq Nawab} Sahab Kunta, Jahanuma,^{Charminar,Hyderabad}

¶148

Abdul Fareed,^{S/ o. LateAbdulHameedAged about 2O Years' Occ Student'} residents of^{H.No.1g4-27gtBt2otN1 , Opp Masjid - E - Omar FarooqNawab} Sahab Kunta, Jahanuma'^{Charminar, Hyderabad'}

¶149

5.^{\A/aseemsFatirne, D/o. Late AbdulHameed,Aged about15 Yea's' Occ} Student, residents^{of H,No. 194-27glBl21tNl, Opp' Masjid - E - Omar} Farooq Nawab Sahab^{Kunta,Jahanuma, Charminar, Hyderabad'}

¶150

Sameera Fatima,^{D/o. Late AbdulHameed,Aged about13 Years, Occ'} Student, residents^{of H No. 1S-4-279lBt20lAJ1,Opp' Masjid - E - Omar} Farooq Nawab Sahab^{Kunta,Jahanuma, Charminar, Hyderabad'} (Respondents5&6areminorsrepresentedbytheirmotherandnatural guardian' Respondent No 1)

¶151

...RES'.NDENTS/,ET.'..NERS

¶152

ApPoal filed under^{Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Ac't againstthe award} dal€d 2O.O4.2O22^{passed ln M.V O.P.No 2421 of 2018on the file of the Motor} Accident Claims^{Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge' City CivilCourt at Hyderabad'}

¶153

ORDER: This appeal^{coming on for hearingand upon perusingthe grounds of} appeal, the Judgrnent^{and Decree of the Lower Court and the materialpaper in the} case and upon hearing^{the argumentsof Sri Thoom Srinivas' StandingCounsel for} T.S.R.T.C.. for the^APPellants and of Sri T.^{ViswarupaChary, Adovcatefor} Respondents.

¶154

This Court doth order and Common decree^{as follows:}

¶155

That the Motor Accident Civil^{Miscellaneous APpealNo 'l 14 of 2023 be and} hereby is dismissed;

¶156

That the lvlotor Accident civil Miscellaneous^{Appeal No.617 of 2022 be and}

¶157

hereby is^partly allowed,

¶158

That the total compensation.^{payable to the claimants be and hereby is raised} and enhanced from Rs.11,59,000/-^{to Rs.11,65'200/-;}

¶159

That the sald compensatlon amount^{shall also carry interest} @^{9olo per annum} fromthedateoftheclaimpetitionmadebeforetheTribunaltillthedateofthe actual^payment;

¶160

That the TSRTC be and^{hereby is direc,tedto ensure that the entire amount of} compensation is deposited^{within a periodof six weeks fromthe dateof} receipt of copy of this order, duly^{adjusting the amount,if any, already paid by} TSRTC;

¶161

That the^ratao of^{apportionmentof amountsamong the appellants/claimants} and the permission to^{withdrewl shall be the same in terrnsof the award} passed by the Tribunal: and

¶162