Apsrtc, Hyderabad Vs B Shankar, Karimnagar Dist and 1 Other

¶1

[³²⁵³¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAT}

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶6

MACMA.No.1762 0F 2016

¶7

AND ifACMA.!to.35s ot 2017

¶8

Appeal filed Under Section^'173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 against the Order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.390 ol 2O14 dated.21-O1-2O l6 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lll Additional District judge, at Karimnagar.

¶9

Between:

¶10

B Shankar, s/o. Gopal, Aged 40 year, Occ: Unemployee, Prior to the accident Supervisor, Under Komuravelli Srinivas of Fertilizer Business, Un-sound, represented by his natural father, Bojja Gopah S/o. Chandraiah, aged 60 years, Om Agriculture, Rlio, Elkathurith Village and Mandal Karimnagar District.

¶11

...AppellanUPetitioner

¶12

AND

¶13

C Venkateshwarlu, S/o. Yellaiah Age 54 years, Occ Driver of APSRTC Bus, Bearing NO. AP 29 Z 249 of Karimnagar - ll Depot. r/o. Theegala Guttapalli Village Karimnagar Mandal and District.

¶14

The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Represented by its Divisional Manager-cum-Vice President Bus Bhavan, MusheerabadHyderabad. PRESENTLY CHANGED AS TELANGANA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Represented by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad - Hyderabad.

¶15

...Respondents/Respondents

¶16

MACMANO: 355 0F 2017

¶17

Between:

¶18

APSRTC, rep. by its Divisional Manager-cum Vice President, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶19

...AppellanURespondent

¶20

AND

¶21

1 B Shankar, S/o. Gopal, Age 40 years, Occ. Presenfly i\ l, pnor to the accident, Supervisor under Komuravelli Srinivas of Fertilizer UGi ,ese . Un-sound, rep. by his natural father Bojja Gopal, S/o. Chandraiah, Ag,: 60 years, Occ.' {griculture,^{Rl/o.Elkathurthi (V) and (M),Karimnagartrt;triit (amended as per} Orders in lA No.401/20'15, dt.06.05.2015)^-

¶22

. .. F espondenUpetitioner

¶23

2 Chanda Venkateshwarlu, S/o. Yellaiah, Age 54 years, ( cc. Driver of ApSRTC bus bearing No.AP29 2249 of Karirnnagar-ll D€ilot, Ri: Theegataguttapalli (V), Karimnagar Mandal and District.

¶24

...Respc rdents/Respondents

¶25

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(MAelrAMP. NO: 666 OF 20,t71

¶26

Petition under section 151 of cPC praying that in th* :ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High coui nay be pleased grant to stay all further proceedings including execution of the avv rrd and decree dated 21 .o1 .2016 passed in MVOP No.390 of 2o14 on the file of the chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Tribunal cum lll Addl.District Judge, Karimrr gar

¶27

Counsel for the Appellant in MACMANO.I762 of 2016 AND Respondent No.1 in MACMANo.355 ot 2011

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 in MACMA.NO.l762 ot 2016 and^petitioner in MACMANo.3SS of 2017

¶29

: SRI RAMlrr ;HANDAR RAO VEMUGT.I TI

¶30

: SRt N CHAtrl )RASEKHAR, SC

¶31

The Court delivered the fotlowing: COMMON JUDGMENT

¶32

THE HONOURABLE SMT. WSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶33

M.A.C.M.A.No.l7 62 OF 201 6 AND M.A.C.M.A.No.355 OF 2Ot7

¶34

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶35

These two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.1762 of 2Ot6, filed by the claim petitioner/ injured seeking enhancement oI compensation and M.A.C.M.A.No.355 of 2Ol7 fil'cd by A.P.S.R.T.C challenging the quantum of compensation, both are directed against the very same order dated 21.O1.2016 passed in M.V.O.P.No.390 of 2074, on |ne frle of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar.

¶36

For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

¶37

The facts of the case in brref are that initially, the petitioner/ injured filed a petition under Section 166(1)(a) of rhe Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs. 15,OO,0O0/on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that took place on O2.12.2OI3 at about 19.3O hours at Elkathurthi Village. As stated by the petitioner, on 02.72.2013, in the evening hours, after completion of agriculLural work, when the petitioner was proceeding to Macherla Bikshapathi Mirchi Bajji

¶38

\ ryiI

¶39

2

¶40

I!GP,] NIACMA.No I 761 or 2ar5 a.d MACMA No 155 0t 2017

¶41

stall to bring bajjis and when reached Bikshapathi Mirchi stall, one RTC Bus bearing N o. Ap-292-249 came in a ras r and ncgligent manner and dashed the petitioner from his backr; le. As a result, the petitioner fell down and sustained bleeding I rjuries over his head, mouth and other parts of his body. Imnr cliately, he was shifted to M.G.M.Hospital, Warangal and after t.i 'st Aid, he u.as shifted to Max Care Hospital, Hyderabad anrl he underwent difleren t types of medical tests and was treaterl i u inpatient from 02.12.2013 Lo 20.1,2.2013 and underwent surgerl. lor Head injury and was discharged with an advice of follow_up reatmenr. It is stated by the petitioner that at the time of dischar,3 ,^{the petitioner} was suffering u'ith mental disorderness and giddin :ss and rrnable to attend to his duties and became dependan . on his family members

¶42

\

¶43

Based on a complaint, police of Elkathurt L i police Station registered a case in Crime No. 153 of 2Ol3 under Srr ction 33il IpC, conducted investigation and filed charge sheet agai:;t the driver of crime RTC vehicle.

¶44

5 It is stated by the petitioner that prior to accirl nt, he used to work as a Supervisor in a Fertilizer shop and used to earn Rs.8,000/ per month. Due to the accident, l t incurred an amount of Rs.4,OO,O00/- and odd for his rr ratment and

I t

-,1

3

MGP,] MACMA.No.1762 0I2016 dnd MACMA.No 355of2017

¶49

transportation and therefore filed petition seeking compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- against the respondents/RTC.

¶50

Respondent No.1/Driver of RTC bus bearing No.Ap_292_249 filed his counter denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the petitioner himself had negligently fallen on the road and sustained injuries and there is no negligence on part of him and therefore, prayed to dismiss the claim against it.

¶51

Respondent No.2/Divisional Manager of RTC flled his counLer denying the averments of the claim petition and contended that respondent No. I was very cautious and ditigent while driving the crime RTC bus and further contended that the petitioner himself had contributed for the alleged accident and there is no negligence on part of the driver of RTC Bus and therefore prayed to dismiss the claim against them.

¶52

Based on the pleadings made by both parties, the learned

¶53

Tribunal had framed the following issues:-

¶54

(t) Wlether the accident had ocanrred d_ue to rash and negligent driuing of the offending uehicle i.e., RTC Bus beaing No.AP-292-249 diuen by its diuer?

¶55

(ii) Whetlrcr the petitioner is entttled for compensation? If so, to uthat amount and from uhom?

¶56

(iii) To ulhat relieJ?

¶57

4

¶58

MGP,] MAaMA.No 1762 ol 20t6rnd MACMA.No.3550f2017

¶59

9 . Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the pe t I oners, pWs I to 5 were examined and Exs.Al to A17 were mark:d. On behalf of Respondents/ RTC, RW I was examined, but r L, documents were marked.

¶60

After considering the evidence and docur tents available on record, the learned Tribunal had partly-allowr:rl the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs. 12,31,1t 1/ along with proportionate costs and interest @ 7 .5% pcr an r um from the date of petition till the date of realization pav r rle by both the respondents 1 & 2 jointly and severally. Che I enging the same, the present appcals came to be filed by thc njured zrnd RTC respectively.

¶61

t 1. Heard arguments submitted by Sri Ra n Chander Rao Vemugantr, learncd counsel for appellant in M 1. l.M.A.No.l762 of 2016 and Sri N. Chandrasekhar, learned Starr ting Counsel for T.S.R.T.C representing respondents. r ppellant in M.A.C.M.A. No.355 of 2017. Perused the record

¶62

The contentions of the learned r r Lrnsel lbr the appellant/ inj ured in M.A.C.M.A.No.1762 of^,2r) .6 are that the learned Tribunal ought to have taken the monrl Iy income of the injured @ Rs.8,OOO/- instead of Rs.5,O0O/-; ought ro have I awarded Rs.50,0O0/- towards pain and sufferirr 1; ought to have I

¶63

\ \

¶64

5

¶65

MGP,] MACMA.No 1762 or 2016 and MACMA.No.l550f2017

¶66

awarded attendant charges to the injured petitioner throughout his life and also ought to have awarded future prospects to the income of the deceased and therefore prayed to allow the Appeal by enhancing the compensation amount.

¶67

On the other hand, the contentions of the learned Counsel for Respondent No.2/Appellant-RTC in M.A.C.M.A.No.355 ot 2Ot7 are that the Tribunal failed to see that there is no negligence on part of the driver of RTC bus bearing No.AP-292-249 as the petitioner himself who is in intoxicated condition, tried to cross the road and dashed the RTC bus. It aiso contended that the Tribunal erred in assessing the age and income of the injured without any proper evidence and further contended that the multiplier applied is without any documentary evidence and hence prayed to allow the Appeal by setting aside the order of the learned Tribunat.

¶68

Now the point that emerges for determination is,

¶69

(i) Whether tLLe order passed by the learned Tribunal suffers from^{ang inegularity?}

¶70

(ii)Wlrcther the appellant/ injured is entitled for enhancement of compensation amount?

¶71

6

¶72

MGP,] MACMA.No 1762 of 20lE a.d N1ACMA.No.3S5of2Ol7

¶73

POINT:-

¶74

A perusal of the record reveals tha: the father of the petitioner/ injured was examined as pW I nd reiterated the contents made in the claim petition and r cposed about the occurrence of accident and injuries sustain - I by his son. In support of his evidence, he got marked Exs.A1 t.t Ar7. As he is not an eye-witness to the accident, he got examin<rr pW4 e1,e witness and also to provc injuries, he got examined pWll Doctor.

¶75

PW4, an eye u.itness to the incident, delto ed rn his evidence that the accident occurrcd duc to the negliger.e on part of the driver of RTC Bus bearing No.Ap-292-249 anc th:rt there is no negligence on part of injured.

¶76

PW2-Neurosurgeon of Max Care tlospit l, Hanamkonda, deposed in his evidence that the petitioner/ injur: I was adrnitted in their Hospital on 02.12.201,3 with history of RT) and the patient was unconscious as he sustained severe bleerl ng injury to his Head. The petitioner was incubated and kept : _r Ventilator and C.T. scan of the Brain was taken and there occur: cl big clot on the right side of brain of the petitioner and bone f-, cture for which immediate surgical cvacuation of his brain c.lot r,.r s done and due to poor GCS, he is in need of ventilator post opo: atively for more than a week. Hc further stated that the petitl )ner underwent I

¶77

<br>

¶78

1

¶79

ir'rGP) MACMA.No.1752 or 2016 and MACMA.No.355 0f 2017

¶80

Tracheostomy and also had multiple rib fractures on the Ieft side of the chest and surgery was done for the same. He further stated that Exs.A2, A5 to A17 were issued by their Hospital and that there is a chance to get fits in future to the injured and he cannot perform all his routine works. He a.lso stated that the injured will not be able to do any physical work due to the said Head injury and loss of memory and the injured is required to be under follow up treatment.

¶81

In order to prove about the earnings of the petitioners, PW3, Owner of Ramakrishna Fertilizer shop was examined. PW3 in his evidence deposed that the injured used to work as Supervisor in their Fertilizer shop and he used to pay Rs.8,000/ - per month to him towards his salary.

¶82

The petitioner/ injured also examined PWs- Civil Surgeon and one of the Members of Medical Board who issued Disability Certificate under Ex.A9. PWS in his evidence deposed that the petitioner sustained 7 lo/o permanent disability due to mental illness and he issued Disability Certificate under Ex.A9 as a Member of Medical Board.

¶83

Though PWs I to 5 were put to cross-examination, except denying the suggestions put to them, nothing worthwhile was elicited from them to disbelieve their testimony.

.- \

r -*!tttl

8

M6P,I MACMA.No.1762 0f 2015 a.d MACMA.No.355 0f2017

¶88

As far as documentary evidence is conc,: ned , Ex.A 1 is the FIR registered by Police of Elkathurthi policrr Sta tion in Crime No.153 of 2O13, conducted investigation anrl iled charge sheet under Ex.A3 against the driver of RTC Bus bear r gNo.AP-292-249. Ex.A2 is thc Medical Certihcate issued by 1\l x Care Hospital, Hanamkonda. Ex.A4 is the Motor Vehicle Ins1,r ctor report which discloses that the accident had not occucd due to any mechanical defects in the vehicle. Ex.A5 s thc Discharge summary of Max Care Hospital. Ex.A6 is thr: I rpatient fina1 bill issued by Max Care Hospital. trx.A7are the b l s issued by Max Care Hospital, Hanamkonda. Ex.Ag are the phar nac1. bills of Max Care Hospital, Hanamkonda. Ex.A9 is the Di: rbility Certificate issued by Medical Board, Karimnagar, Ex.A I ) is the Salary Certihcate of the petitioner. Ex.Al1 are the bunc r oI medical bills (74 in number). Ex.Al2 are the bunch of invr:s,r gation and cash receipts (36 in number). Ex.A13 are the br nch of advance receipts. Ex.A14 are the bunch of prescriptions. Ex.A15 are the bunch of medical bills for follow up treatmen r . Ex.A16 are the bunch of investigation reports. Ex.A|Z are tht bunch of X-Ray films and CT scan reports.

¶89

In order to rebut the evidence adduced r r behalf of the petitioner/ inj ured, the driver of the alleged crimc l,,lC bus bearing

I t

\

9

MGP] MACMA. No- 1762 of 2015 and MACMA.No.355 of 2017

¶94

No.AP -292-249 got examined himself as RWl. During his crossexamination he admitted that criminal case was registered against him and he took bail from the Police Station. He also deposed that he had not given in writing to the police that he is no way concerned with the accident.

¶95

Therefore, from the foregoing discussion, it can be safely held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime RTC Bus bearing No.AP-292-249 and there is no contributory negligence on part of the injured which hnding of the Tribunal attains finality and requires no interference by this Court. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.355 of 2077 that there is no contributory negligence on part of the driver of RTC bus bearing No.AP-292-249 of Karimnagar -lI for occurrence of the said accident, is untenable.

¶96

The other contention ofthe learned counsei appellant/RTC is that the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the age and income of the petitioner/ injured without any documentary proof and calculated the compensalion.

¶97

On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No .1762 of 2016 contended that though the petitioner had adduced necessary evidence and hled documentary proof under Ex.A 10 evidencing the income of the^petitioner, but the

¶98

10

¶99

MGP,] MACMA No 1752 of2016 and MACMA.No.355of2017

¶100

learned Tribunal failed to consider the same an I took very meager amount towards the monthly income of the injur :d and calculated loss of earnings.

¶101

ln this regard, a perusal of the Sa1ary I ertificate marked under Ex.A 10 issued by the Proprietor of lri Ramakrishna Fertilizers, Pesticides and Seeds, who was also e <amined as PW3, clearly discloses that the petitioner/injured t sed to work as Supervisor in their Fertilizer shop since 10 year; and he used to pay Rs.8,OOO/- per month towards his salary. Dt e to sustarning of Head injury and mental disorderness, the retitioner/ injured stopped working in their shop.

¶102

Therefore from the above oral evidence of I W3 coupied with the Sa1ary Certihcate under Ex.A 10, it is clear that the petitioner/ injured used to earn an amount o. Rs.8,OOO/- per month. Hence, this Court, by considering the srr ne, is inclined to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal r nd hereby hx an amount of Rs.8,00O/- [owards monthly income oI ,he injured while caiculating the compensation.

¶103

So far as percentage of disability is conce- Led, a perusal of Ex.A9-Disabilit5r Certihcate issued by Medica: Board, District Government Civil Hospital, Karimnagar, clearly I scloses that the petitioner is suffering with 71ok permanent clis: tility relating to

I I

\

71,

MGP,] MACMA.No-1762 of 2015 and MACMA.No.355 of 2017

¶108

severe mental illness and the cause for the said disability is shown to be Disease and Infection. But, the Tribunal in its impugned judgment took the disability percentage @ 1OO% and calculated loss of earnings which this Court hnds to be on higher side and is inclined to interfere with the same and hereby consider disability @ 7l%o as per Disability Certificate under Ex.A9 and calculate loss of earnings as under:-

¶109

Loss of earnings = Monthly income x percentage of disability x i2 x relevant multiplier.

¶110

= Rs.8,0O0/- x 7lo/o x 12 x 14

¶111

=Rs.9,54,24O1-

¶112

Apart from awarding loss of earnings, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.SO,OOO/ lowards pain and suffering, Rs.2,91,181/- towards medical bilts,. Rs.5O,O00/- towards transportation. and extra nourishment which this Court finds the same to be reasonable considering Exs.AS to A17 and is^not inclined to interfere with the same.

¶113

Hence, the petitioner is entitled for a total^compensation under different Heads as detailed below:-

I

72

t \

MGP,] t\lacMA No.1762 0f 2016 and MACMA.No.355 of2017

¶118

S.No.	DescriptionofHead	Amount awarded Tribunal by	Amouflt awardedbythis Court
i	Lossofearningsdue todisability	Rs.8,40,00O/-	Rs.9,54,240
2	MedicalBills	Rs.2,91,181
3	Painand suffering	Rs.5O,000
4	Transportationand	Rs.5O,00O/-
	ExtraNourishment
5	Attendantcharges		Rs.5,O0O
6	Totqlcompensation	Rs.12 31 181/-	Rs.13,50,4211-

¶119

It is also the contention of the lea-r ed counsel for appellant/injured that the learned Tribunal errec in not awarding future prospects to the income of the petitioner

¶120

In this regard, it is pertinent to state that v l en the injured is leading a miserable life and not having any capir, ity to earn, then in such case, future prospects may be awarde,l In the instant case, as seen from record, the injured is not su l :ring from 10O% disability and there is no amputation sustained tr him to any part of the Lrody except suffering from mental illne s s u'hich can be cured at a later point of time by consuming suita: e medicines and followup treatment. Hence, this Court consicl: s that it is not necessary to award future prospects in this case.

.I

ar

13

MGPJ MACMA.No-1762 of 2016 and MACMA, No,355 of 2017

¶125

As far as interest on the compensation amount and liability is concerned, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the hndings of the learned Tribunal as they are in proper perspective.

¶126

In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.35S of 2O7T filed by appellant/RTC is dismissed and M.A.C.M.A.No .LT62 oI 2016 is partly-allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.12,31,181/- to Rs.t3,50,42il-. Except the said hnding, the findings arrived by the Tribunal in all other aspects shall remain same. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶127

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed

¶128

sD/- ASR]NIVASA^REDDY, ISTANT REGISTRAR.

¶129

//TRUE COPY//

¶130

SECTION OFFICER

¶131

To, 1. The chairman, Motor^{Accident claimsTribunal-cum-lll AdditionalDistrict} judge, at Karimnagar(With records, if any)

¶132

z. bn; cctosRl RAMACHANDAR^{RAo VEMUGANTI, Advocate[oPUc]}

¶133

One CC to SRI^{N CHANDRASEKHAR, SC} [OPUC]

¶134

Two CD Copies

BGV/ADK

HIGH COURT

DATED:1410212025

iiE S
l<br>() z
t E jl
*
lc.n.--,-

¶139

COMMON JUDGMENT+DECREE

¶140

MACMA.Nos.1762 of 2015 and 355 o12017

¶141

DISMISSING THE MACMA.No.3SS of i1017 and PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA.NI s.1762 oI 2016

WITHOUTCOSTS

ft\ <br>

:

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶146

FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶147

PRESENT

¶148

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶149

MACMA.No.1762 0F 2016 AND MACMANo.355 o12017

¶150

Between:

¶151

B Shankar, s/o. Gopal, Aged 40 year, Occ: Unemployee, Prior to the accident Supervisor, Under Komuravelli Srinivas of Fertilizer Business, Un-sound, represented by his natural father, Bojja Gopah S/o. Chandraiah, aged 60 years, Om Agriculture, R1o, Elkathurith Village and Mandal Karimnagar District.

¶152

...AppellanUPetitioner

¶153

AND

¶154

C Venkateshwarlu, S/o. Yellaiah Age 54 years, Occ Driver of APSRTC Bus, Bearing NO. AP 292249 of Karimnagar - ll Depot. r/o. Theegala Guttapalli Village Karimnagar Mandal and District.

¶155

The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Represented by its Divisional Manager-cum-Vice President Bus Bhavan, MusheerabadHyderabad. PRESENTLY CHANGED AS TELANGANA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Represented by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad - Hyderabad.

¶156

...Respondents/Respondents

¶157

MAGMANO: 355 OF 2017

¶158

Between:

¶159

APSRTC, repr by its Divisional Manager-cum Vice President, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶160

...AppellanuRespondent

¶161

AND

¶162

1 B Shankar, S/o. Gopal, Age 40^years, Occ. Presently Nil,^prior to the accident, Supervisor under Komuravelli Srinivas of Fertilizer business, Un-sound, rep. by his natural father Bojja Gopal, S/o. Chandraiah, Age 60^years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. Elkathurthi (V) and^(M), Karimnagar District^{(amended as per} Orders in lA No-401/2015, dt-06-05.2015)

¶163

...RespondenUPetitioner

¶164

Chanda Venkateshwarlu, S/o. Yellaiah, Age 54 years, O ;c. Driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP29 2249 ot Karimnagar-ll Depot, FVc,. Theegalaguttapalli (V), Karimnagar Mandal and District.

¶165

...Respo rdents/Respondents

¶166

Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, I r88 against the Order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.390 of 2014 dated.21-O1-2016 on re file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cu m-ll I Addit < nal District judge, at Karimnagar.

¶167

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the⁽⁾ cunds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material pe :ers in the Case and upon hearing the arguments of SRI RAMACHANDAR RAO VI MUGANTI, Advocate for the Appellant in MACMA.NO.1762 ot 2016 and t espondent No.1 in MACMA.No.3SS ot 2017 and SRI N CHANDRASEKHAR, S( for the Respondent No.2 in MACMA.NO.1762 of 2016 and Petitioner in MACMA.NT .355 of 2017.

¶168

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶169

1 . That the MACMA.No.3SS of 2017 be and hereby is dis r ssed;

¶170

That the MACMA.NO.1762 ot 2016 be and hereby is pzu ly allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal frc n Rs. 12,31,1811- lo Rs.^'13,50,4211 ;

¶171