Allowed

Nandyala Indiramma v. Krishna Kumar

Telangana HC4 Jul 2025MACMA/1789/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimants sought enhanced compensation for death of an agriculturist killed in a lorry-motorcycle collision. The High Court reassessed income from agricultural land holdings, added future prospects and conventional heads, and raised compensation from Rs.7,49,000 to Rs.13,77,100 with 7% interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.7,49,000/- to Rs.13,77,100/- with interest @7% p.a.; deposit directed within two months.

Nandyala Indiramma Vs Krishna Kumar — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SR!JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANOIKONDA

¶5

MOTOR ACCIDENT ctvlL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1789 oF 2018

¶6

Appeal filed under section 173 of M.v.Act, against order and Decree dated 12.09.2017 passed in o.p.No.427 of 2014 on the file of the court of the chairman, Motor Accident craims Tribunar (prr. District Judge), Nargonda.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Na.ndyala lndiramma, Wo. Late Goverdhan Reddy, Age. 43 years, Occ. House hold,

¶9

Nandyala Radhika, D/o. Late Goverdhan Reddy, Age. 24years, occ. student

¶10

Nandyala Ram Reddy, s/o. Late Goverdhan Reddy, Age.23 years, occ. student R/o. Choudampally Village, Narketpally Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶11

...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

.' [^li!fr1 121001.^{tg?l 3';*'f F%lfil#il?fhTiy#b,I/,h',11"+i"1tTts,,,J,R}

¶14

National lnsurance company Ltd, Regional office, T.p. Legal Hub, Jubli Building, Nampally Station Road, HyA'eraOiO R?p. Oy its Minager.

¶15

(Policy No. 361 102t31 11916300006003 varid from 1 1 -1 -2014 to 1 0-01-201 5)

¶16

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶17

Counset forthe Appellants : SRt. ANNAPURNA SREERAM Counsel forthe Respondent No.i : M. yAKESHWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : V. SAMBASIVARAO The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶18

TITE HON'BLE SRI JI,STICE NARSING RAO NANDIKOIIDA

¶19

JUDGMENT:

¶20

The appellants/claimants filed the present appear against the Award and decree passed by the chairman, Motor Accident craims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nalgonda (hereinafter referred to 'learned Tribunau in M . v. o. p. No .422 of 20 L4 , dated t2 .og .2o LT , wherein claimants/petitioners had filed the claim petition under Section L66 of M.V. Act, 19gg seeking compensation of Rs. r3,oo,ooo/- on account of death of lst petitioner husband, namery sri N. Goverdhan Reddy, (hereinafter referred to as 'the d.eceased') who died in acciclent occurred on 04.06 .2OL4.

¶21

2' The brief facts of the case are that appellants/claimants who are the wife, and children of the deceased fired M.v.o.p. No.42T of 2or4 under section 166 of the M.v. Act, 19gg seeking compensation for the death of the deceased, who died in the accident alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent driving of resporrdent No. 1. It is contended that on 04.06-2014, the deceased and his rerative MaIIa Reddy, have purchased the cotton seeds at Nalgonda and were returning to their

¶22

¶23

rt,R'J M'A'C.' ti'A'No''^{? 89 of20 7 8}

¶24

village choudampally^{on motor cycle bearing No.AP-24 lAKl6558 and} Malla Reddy^{was driving the motor cycle and the deceasedwas} travelling on the^{said bike as a pillion rid.er. when they reached APSP} Battalion located^{in the outskirts of Anneparthy of Addanki-Narketpally} High way, the^{driver of the lorry (Truck)bearing No.HR-38-Q-85O2came} in a rash and^{negligent manner at high speedand dashed the motor} cycle, due to^{which, the deceasedand. the driver Malla Reddy sustained} grievous injuries^{and both died on the spot. The Police, Nalgonda} registered. a case^{in Crime No.151 of 2014 und'er Section 3C4 of IPC} agaiirst the driver^{cf the lorry, i-e., respond,ent No.1. On accountof the} death of the^{deceased., the claimants filed claim petition seeking} compensation^{of Rs.13,OO,0OO/- under variousheads'}

¶25

The contention^{of the clairnantswas that as on the date of} accident, the^{deceased \t'as aged about 44 years and was earning} Rs.15,000/-^{per month beingagriculturist. Due to the said accident' the} claimants lost^{their dependency.As such, filed claim petition seeking} compensation.

¶26

Before the learned^{Tribunal,respond.entNo.l remainedex parte'} Respondent^{No.2 filecl coUnter-affrdavit, denying all the averments made} -\

¶27

¶28

na.c.n-e.No.nagoffi4zog

¶29

in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the deceased and contended that the rider was not holding vatid driving licence at the time of accident and as such, the compensation cla.imed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

¶30

Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads as under:

¶31

i) whether th.e deceased Nandyala Gouerd.han Reddy and. his relatiue Basireddg Malta Reddg died in tlrc motor uehicle aciid.ent due to rash and negligent driuing of the drtuer of one container Lorry ffruck) bearing I{o.HR-38-Q-85O2?

¶32

ii) whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation? If so, fo what amount and from wlam?

¶33

iii)To whnt relieft

¶34

The claimants got examined pws 1 and 2 and, got marked Exs.Al to 46. No witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondents, but got marked Ex.B1-policy copy.

¶35

7 - Having heard both the counsel and after perusing the oral and documentary evidences placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the said accident occurred due to the rash 1-

¶36

¶37

.il.rR-, fr.A.C.,I-A.No. I 7 89^{of 20 1 A}

¶38

and negligent driving of the driver of the^{said lorry and made the} respondents responsible for the accident^{and partly allowed the claim} petition, awarding an amount of Rs.7,49,0OO/-^{infavour ofthe} claimants and against respondent Nos.l^{and 2, with interest} @^{7o/o pet} annum from the date of f,rling^{of petitiontill the date of awardand also} subsequent interest @ 60/0 from the date of^{award tillthe date of} realization.

¶39

Being unsatisfied and aggrieved by^{the compensation amount} awarded by the learned Tribunal,^{the present appealhas been preferred} on the ground that the learned^{Tribunal did not consider the age of the} deceased and took \f,/rong multiplier^{as 13 in place of L4 and that the} learned Tribunal has taken the^{monthly income of the deceased at} Rs.6,000/-, though the deceased^{was earningRs.15,O0O/-per month at} the time of the accident. Further,^{even though the petitionersare} entitled for 5Oo/o increment towards^{future prospects,the} 'learned Tribunal did not consider^{the same and the interest ought to have been} awarded @^g% per annum^{and love and affection also ought to have} been granted

¶40

5 rv,vR.J fi .A-c. tlt.A. No. t⁷ E9^{of 207} t

¶41

g. Heard Sri Annapurna Sreeram, learned^{counselforthe} appellants/claimants and Sri V. Sambasiva^{Rao, learned counselfor} respondent No.2-lnsurance Company. None^{appeared for respondent} No.1.

¶42

The point which arose for consideration^{beforethis Court in the} present appeal is that:

¶43

i) Whether the appellants are entitled for enhnnced compensation as praged for? IJ so, to what ertent?

¶44

Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants^{submitsthat even} though the claimants got marked Ex.A6 which^{shows that the deceased} was doing agriculture on Ac.4.27 gts., and earning^{Rs.15,000/-,the} learned Tribunal failed to consider the monthly income^{of the deceased} at Rs.15,O00/- white awarding the compensation.^{Learned counsel} further relied upon the^judgrnent of the Hon'ble^{SupremeCourt in the} case of Shailaja & Ors., v. Pavan B. Udupudi^{& Anotherrand the} relevant paragraph No.5 is reproduced hereinudner:

¶45

"5. Having considered the submissions made by the^learned counsel for the parties and by taking into consideration^{the date} of accident was on 11 .O5.20L2, the ceiling^{limit of the income} tax at the relevant point of time was Rs.1,80,OOO/-^{the income} of the deceased from profession is accordingly^{taken or in other}

¶46

L 2025 Law Suit (SC) 860

¶47

¶48

.TIYRJ |r. il, A, No. I 789 of 20 I I ^.C,

¶49

wgrds we accept the income of the deceased from profession to said extent as he was an advocate with 17 years of standing. Absence of income proof cannot be a grou.rd to deny just an? reasonable compensation, particularty when there is no dispute that deceased was having a standin g-of LT years at the Bar. The Courts below concurrentll, 1-r"" accepted that deceased owned around 3 acres of agricultural land as evident from Ex.p.w-13 and 14 and yet was not persuaded to construe the income generated from the agricultural operations, for reasons best known. To maintain the said agricultural land and carry on the operations, the claimants have to necessarily explnd an amount and Rs.3,ooo /- per acre and same would be required to be spent for carrying on the agricultural operations or in other words at least a sum of Rs.1o,0oo/- per month will have to be paid towards supervision charges for maintaining 3 acres of agricultural land, nccessarily thls arnount has to be construed as the loss of income to the dependents of the deceased. The supervision cha-rges which claimants will have to speird would be Rs.10,000/- per month (Rs. r,2o,ooo/- per year). Hence total earning of the deceased comes to Rs.3,OO,bOOi_ per year. If we add 1096 towar'is futur.e prospects, the annuai income comes to Rs.3,3o,0oo / -- Taking note of the number of dependents, if we deduct L/4th, the amount wouid be Rs.2,4Z,iOO1_ per year. c-orresponding to the age of the deceased (51 years), murtiplier ol 11 would be appricable. Thus, the amount oicompensation to which claimants would be entitled towa.rds loss of income would be Rs.27,22,500/- (2,4Z,SOO X 11). if we further add Rs.2,40,000/- towards loss of love and a-ffection and filiat compensation and Rs.75,ooo/- under the head of transportation of dead body and funeral expenses, total amount of compensation to which claimants would be entitled to would be Rs. 30,37,500/-. After deducting the amount of compensation awarded by the High court i.e., Rs.15,76,g00/the enhanced compensation payable would be Rs. 14,60,T00/-".

¶50

12' Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has vehemently contended that after considering the entire evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased as

¶51

¶52

ilIIRJ U.A.c.uA.^{No. t 7a9of 20 I a}

¶53

Rs.6,000 /- td award.ed^{compensation, which needs no interference'} Learned counsel for^{respondentNo.2 has furtherrelied upon the} judgment of the Honble Supreme Court^{in the case of New India} Assurance Co. Ltd.^{v. Yogesh Devi and othersz and the relevant} paragraph Nos.10 and 11 are^{reproduced hereunder:}

¶54

"10. In Ja.sbir Kaur's^{case (supra),the claim was based on an} assertion that tLrc^{d.eceased"wg;s an agria,tlturist earning an} amount o/Rs.^{1O,0OO/- per month by anltiuating his land. Dealing} with the question,^{this Court held:}

¶55

"8. xxxxxxxxx. The land. possessed by the^{deceased still} remains with the claimants^{as his legal heirs. Tlrcre is howeuer a} possibility that ttrc claimants^{may be reEtired to engage persons} 'to look i7., agriculture. Therefore, the normal rule about the depriuation of in"o^" is^{not strictlg applicable to cases uthere} agricultural iicome^{is the source.Attendant cirqtmstanceshaueto} be considered."

¶56

Coming to the^{case on ?wnd, the claim is based on the} assertion that the^{deceased" owned agricultural land apart from} the abouementioned^{three mini-buses.Ttrc High Court reiectedthe} claim insofar as if is^{based on tLrcincome} from^{the land, on the} ground tnat tne income would.^{still continueto accrue to the benefit} "oY tn" family. Unfortunately, the High Court fgiteg to see thnt the icz*" logic- *ouid"^{Ue appticable euen to the iname from the} abouemintioned.^{three buies. The asset (three mini-buses)would} still continue with the famtlg^and fetch^{income.Tlrc only} difference,^{perhaps,would. be that during his lW timethe} d.eceased wrs *anaging^{the buses,but now, the claimnnts may} Itnue to engage soffLe competent^{person to manage tlte asset,} which iru fitrn, would"^{require some pagment to be made to such a} mano.ger. To the exteit^{ofsuch pagment,} lhere^{would be a} depleiion in the^{net incomeaeruing to the claimantsout of the} asset. Tlerefore, the^{amount reEtired} for^{engaging the beruic.eof a} manager oia tfo salary^{payableto a driuer - as it is assefted that} the deceased.^{himset|isZa to drtu" one of the threebuses - would}

¶57

z zot2 (4) ALD 101 (sc)

¶58

¶59

JV,VR.J ,LA.C. M.A.No. I 789 of 20 18

¶60

be the loss fo the ctaimants. In the norrnal course the claimants are expected to addue euidence as to wlmt would. be the quantum of depletion in the income from the abouementionei asset on account of the abouementionecr factors. unfortunatery, no sucheuidence utas led. bg the claimants".

¶61

13' Learned counsel for respondent No.2 further argued that it is only a single crop land and the question of supervisory charges which the appellants are claiming cannot be awarded, but considering the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants, there is no dispute and denial in respect of the deceased being in possession of the land to an extent of Ac.4.27 gts., which is agricultural land as held by the Hon'ble supreme court in the case of State of Haryana and Another v. Jasbir Kaur and others3, wherein, relevant paragraph No.g is reproduced herein under:

¶62

"8. It is clear on d bare read.ing of the Tribunal,s d.ecdsron as affr.naed. bg tlrc High cour.t.thnt no rnaterial uas placed. beftrethe former^{to proue} as to ,tlnt was the income. As rightlg coitended. bg learned counset for the appellants, *rcre was not euen qna materiat ad.duced to shout tgpe of tand which the d.eceased. possessed. The matter can be approached from a dtfferent angle. TIE land possessed by the diceased, itrt remains with the claimants as his legal h.eirs. There i.s houteuer a possibilitg that th.e claimant2-mag be reEtired to engage persons to rook after agriailhtre. Therefore, th.e normal rutb auiut the depriuation of incom.e rs n?t strictty applicable to cases where^{-agricultural} iname is the source. Attend.ant circum.stances haue to be

¶63

3 1zoos1 z scc 484

¶64

¶65

IYIIf,.J U.A.C,X.A. No. tzag^{of 20,a}

¶66

consid.ered. F\trthermore,^{there u)as no material before the} Tribunal to arriue at^the -figure^{of Rs.4500per montluNo reason} hns been indicated to^{arriueat this} figare.^{In tlrc l@ht of wlwthns} been discassed aboue about^{'iust compensation"the income} cannot be estimated without^{any materialto} iustify^{the estimation'} In the normql course, we^{utould hnue remitted the matter back to} the Tribunal for fresh^{consideration.But considering tlrc} fact^that one aoung^person losf^{his life, and the matter was pending before} the^-Tribiiat and fue^{High Court} for^some Aears,^we feel^it appropriate to take all^releuant factors^{irfio cottsideration, and} decid.e the matter. Gauzing^{*Le releuantaspects,noted aboue, tlrc} montltly income is fixed at^{Rs.3OOO/- per monthand after} d.eductl,ng Rs.l,ooo/^- 1or^{personal expenses,} financial^contribution so far oi *o claimants^{are concerned is} fixed^{at Rs.2,o0o/ - per} minth. Worked. out on tle^{basfs of multiplier of78, the} compensation is fixed at^{Rs.4,32,OOO/-. T?e amount of Rs.2,OOO/ -} awirded bg the Tribunal for funeral^{expenses is not interfered} with and thus the total^{compensationcomes to Rs.4,34,O0O/-. The} rate of interest i.e. 9%^{per annum as} fix"d^{by the Tlibunal and} affirmed" by the High^{court is appropriate, and does not need any} a[teration.-After ad"justing^{the sum which was deposited pursuant} to the. ord.ei of this Court^{d.ated14.12.2007,the balance amount} along with interest^{shalt be depositedwithin three montls from} todiy before t?rc Trtbunal.^{On the deposit being made along with} the amount alread.y^{d.eposited", a sum of Rs.3 lakhs shall be kept} in the _fixed deposit in the^{name of the claimants and a sum of} Rs.SO,bOOt- siatt be^{kept tn} frxed^{deposit in the name of Smt.} Bald.eu Kaur, mother of^{the d.eceased.Theg slnll be entitledto} d.raut interest on the deposit,^{which shnll be re-deposited for} furtlrcr^{terrns of} fiue^{Aears. In case of urgent need, it slwll be open} -to th.e claimants to moue Tribunal for release of ang part of the amount in d.eposit. Tle^{Tribunalshall @nsider the reEtest for} utithdrawat aid. shall direct^{withdrawalin case of an urgent need} and not otheruise of^{suchsum as would meet the need.It shall be} specifically indicatia to^{the Bank wlrcrethe deposits are to be} mad.e tlnt no aduance^{or withd.rawal of ang kind stto;ll be} permitted without the ord"er^{of the Tibunal.It stwll be open to the} -claimants to approach ttrc Tribunal for uariance of the ord9l relating to aepisit in ftxed.^{deposit, if any othersch.emewould} fetch^{better returns and. also would prouide rewlar and} permanent income".

¶67

¶68

IVIvIlJ M.A.C.,,,A.No.l7a9 of 20 I A

¶69

14' In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that though the appellants have succeed.ed to the land to an extent of Ac.4.27 gts., there would not be loss of income of the petitioners, as rightly held by the Honble supreme court and the petitioners for the purpose of doing agriculture, they may incur some amount for the purpose of engaging supervisor for cultivation of the land or they may involve in the said cultivation. In such case, obviously, they have to incur certain amount.

¶70

15' Taking into consideration of the judgment of the Honble Supreme court cited in Shailaja case (supraf, this court is arso of the opinion that an amount of Rs.2, ooo /- per acre can be taken as a basis for assessing the notional income of the deceased. The actual income would be Rs'2,OOO / - and when multiplied with the extent of lancl ownect by the deceased, it would come to Rs.gr54C t- (Rs.2OOO /_X Ac.4.2T gts.,).

¶71

As per the decision of Honble Supreme court in Nationo,r rnsttrance compang Ltmited. vs. pranag sethi and. othersq and considering the age of the deceased as 45 years as on the date of accident which is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants, additional 25o/" of the income has to be added towards future prospects

¶72

42017 ACJ2700

¶73

11 I{ilRJ LA.C.fi^{.A. tto. t 7a!,of 20' I}

¶74

to the monthly^{income of the d.eceased. Therefore,the monthlyincomeof} the d,eceased^{would come to Rs. tO,675l- (Rs.8,540/-+ Rs'2,135/-)' The} annual income^{of thed.eceasedwould come toRs.1,28,LOOl-} (Rs.10,67 5l- X 12)^{and, out of which, 1/3 has to be deducted towards} the personal^{expensesof the deceased as the dependants are three in} number. Then the^{actual annual incomewouldcome to Rs'85,40O1-} (Rs.1 ,28,LOO /-^{(-) Rs.a2,7OO} l-l'

¶75

As per the column^{No.4 of schedulefixed in the judgment of the} Apex Court in Sarlcr^{Verma a. Delhi TranspottCorporatTons} '^anld considering the age^{of the d.eceased as 45 years, the appropriate} multiplier applicable^{for the deceased age is '14'' Thus, the total loss of} dependency would^{come to Rs.11,95,600/-(Rs.85,4OO/- x 14).}

¶76

The appellants/claimants^{are furtherentitted toRs'18,LsO1-} (Rs.15,000/-⁺ lOo/o^{+ 1O%) towardsloss of estate and Rs'18,150/-} (Rs. 15,00 O l-⁺ looh^{+ 1o%) towards funeral expenses, as per Pranag} Setlri's Judgrnent^{(citedsuPra).}

s 2oo9 ACI 1298 (sc)

ivlvP-J tt.,t cu.t. No. t 789 oiidl8

¶81

Further, considering that appelrant No.1 being the wife of deceased, she is entitred to a sum of Rs.4g, 4ool-under the head of ,ross of consortium' as per pranag sethi's Judgment (cited supra).

¶82

20' Appellant Nos.2 and 3 being the children of the deceased, they are entitled for compensation to a sum of Rs.96,goo/- (Rs.4g,40o x 2l under the head of 'ross of parental consortium, as per Magma General Insurance campany Limited. o. Nanu R,,m aris chuhnt R..rn

¶83

21' In sarla vermq.'s ccse (cited. aboae), t,.e Hon,ble Apex court, rvhile elaborating the concept of ijust compensation, observed as under:

¶84

"Past compensatioT is ad.equate compensation which is fair and equitable on the facts and. .irc,mstances of the case, to make good fhe /oss suffered as a result.of the- *ing,-L" p, as moneA can do so, hy applging, the well settled pincioles relatirry to attard of c.ompensation. It is not intend.ea ,o'i" o bonanza,

¶85

considering the above assessment made by this court, appeilants

¶86

wor;ld be entitled to as follows:

¶87

ual Income (of the deceased) 8,540/- X 12 Rs.1,02,4gol_ ii) Total Annual Income = Annual Income + Future Prospects (Annual Income X2Syo1 = I Rs 1,O2,48O/- + Rs.25,62O/- : Rs.1,2g, LOOI_ i) , Ann ttal Dependency =\61 Annual Income - l/3

¶88

¶89

ItittRJ &A.C.X.A.^{Itu. t 7Ag of20t t}

¶90

)

¶91

	deduction^{towards personalexpensesofthedeceased} Rs.1,28,1OO/-^{(-)Rs.a7,7OOl-} Rs.85,4OO/-
iv)	TotalDependency^{=AnnualDependencyx} Multiplier=^Rs.85,4OOl^{-x 14} Applied	Rs.11,95,6001-
v)	Claimants'^{entitlement towards conventionalheads:} LossofEstate^{+f\rneral Expenses+ loss of sPousal} consortium^{+lossof Parental Consortium:} Rs.18,150/-^{+Rs.18,150/-+ Rs'48,400+ Rs'96'8O0=}	Rs.1,81,500/-
	Total	Rs.13,77,10o.1'

¶92

Thus, the^{appellants/claimants are entitledtothe enhanced} compensation^{of Rs. Lg,77r1OO/- as against the awardedamount of} Rs.7,49,0^OO I^{- by the learned Tribunal'}

¶93

considering^{the circumstancesof the case, the learned Tribunal} has rightly awarded^{the rate of interest@ 7 oh per annum and the same} need.s no interference^{by this Court. Hence, this Court is of the opinion} that the petitioners/claimants^{are entitled for the interest @ 7o/o on t}lre} enhanced arnount.

¶94

¶95

This^{point is answered accordinglyin favour of the appellants and </sup> against the^{respondents.The claimants are entitled'for an enhanced}}

¶96

compensation^{of Rs. t3r77} r1OO/-'

/ ,/ I

a-a.c-ilt.r*-.tztg o#fa

¶102

26' Accordingly, the M.A.c.M.A is ailowed, enhancing the

¶103

compensation from Rs.7,49,0o0/- to Rs. LgrTzrroot- with interest at the rate @ 7o/o p'a' on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of tealization. The respondents directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of this judgment. The respond.ents are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due ci.edit Lo the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a cop5z of this judgment. The compensation amount shall be apportioned among the claimants in the same manner and ratio as ordere<I by the learned Tribunal. on such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any surety. There sha, be no order as to costs.

¶104

27 Miscellaneous petitions, 1{ any are pending, sha[ stand closed. SD/ - T.SRINIVASA REDDY

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPYII

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nalgonda.

¶110

2.3. one cc to sRt- ANNAPURNA SREERAM Advocate topucl one cc to sRt. M. YAKESHWAR RAO Aavo&GloFlct^-'

¶111

One CC to SRt. V. SAMBASIVARAO, ndvocate iOeuCl 5. Two CD Copies GE

HIGH COURT

DATED:04l0TIZO}S

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.1789 of 2O1B

¶117

t T H E s
? o3 Jl,rl 2r?6
*

¶118

ALLOWTNG THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

¶119

$./
a

¶120

[³⁴⁴³¹

¶121

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶122

FRIDAY,THE FOURTH^{DAY OF JULY} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYFIVE}

¶123

PRESENT

¶124

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE^{NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA}

¶125

MO CCIDENT CIVIL M ELLAN APP L NO: oF 20

¶126

Betvveen:

¶127

Nandyala lndiramma,^{Wo. Late Goverdhan Reddy, Age' 43 yearc,Occ'House} hold,

¶128

Nandyala Radhika,^{D/o. Late GoverdhanReddy,Age.24 years, Occ student}

¶129

3.NandyalaRamReddy,S/o.LateGoverdhanReddy,Age'23years,Occ'student R/o. Choudampally Village,^{Narketpally Mandal, Nalgonda District'}

¶130

...APPELLANTSTPETITIONERS

¶131

AND

¶132

Krishna Kumar,^{S/o. Sh. Uday Ram' Age- Majorr Rl/o' H'No' 63, Spctor-2-]p'} " iil;ilg iioiio cotoni, Farid'abad taniit and District, Haryana State, Pin121001.

¶133

National lnsurance^{companyLtd, Regional office,T.P. LegalHub, Jubli Building,} Nampally Station^{Road, HyderabadRep. by its Manager.}

¶134

(Policy No. 361 1 O2tg1 I^{1 g 16300006003validfrom 1 1 -1 -20 1 4 to1 0-01-201 5)}

¶135

...RESPONDENTS'RESPONDENTS

¶136

AppealfiledunderSectionlT3ofM.V.Act,againstOrderandDecree dated 12.09.2017^{passed in o.P.No.427ot 2014on the file of the courtof the} Chairman, Motoi^{AccidentClaimsTribunal (Prl. DistrictJudge), Nalgonda'}

¶137

This appeal coming^{on for hearing and uponperusingthe grounds of} appeal, the^{judgment and Decree of the Lower courtand the materialpapers in} the case and^{upon hearingthe argument of SRI ANNAPURNASREERAM,} Advocate for the^{Appellants and sRl M. YAKESHWARRAO, Advocate appearedfor} SRI V. SAMBA^{SIVA RAO, Advocate appeared for} Respondent No.1^and Respondent No.^2.

¶138

This Court doth Order and Decrce as follows:

¶139

'l. That the Motor Accident civir Misceilaneous Appear be and is hereby allowed.

¶140

That the compensation be and is hereby enhanced from Rs.7,49,000/_ to Rs.13,77,100/- with interest at the rate @ 7o/o p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶141

That the respondents be and is hereby directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount arready deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of this^judgment.

¶142