Partly allowed

Sk. Nagur Shafi v. Gangavaram Sundarshanreddy

Telangana HC12 Dec 2025MACMA/450/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimants sought enhancement of compensation for death of a flower vendor in a road accident. Court fixed notional income at Rs.8,000 per month with future prospects at 40%, applied multiplier 16, added parental consortium for two minor children, and enhanced compensation from about Rs.5.37 lakh to Rs.18.34 lakh with 9% interest.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sk. Nagur Shafi Vs Gangavaram Sundarshanreddy — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³⁴⁸⁶¹

¶2

i i I

¶3

,ii : I i i I i II II II I !iI ii I i 1 I I ; j :

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶5

FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

¶8

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEA L NO: 450 OF 2023

¶9

Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act., aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated. 27 -O1-2O23 in M.V.O.P.No. 932 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Tribunal-cum-X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad.

¶10

Between:

¶11

SK. Nagur Shafi, S/o. Jhony Basha, age 38 Years, Occ: Flower collection, Presently. Nil,

¶12

SK. Bashida, D/o. Nagur Shafi, age.14Years, Occ: Student.

¶13

SK. Hasina, D/o. Nagur Shafi, age. 11 Years, Occ: Student.

¶14

SK. Shamshad Begum, Wo. Late Jhony Basha, age: 60 Years, Occ: Nil.

¶15

(Petitioners No.2 and 3 being minors represented by their natural father and guardian Petitioner No.1 by narne SK. Nagur Shafi).

¶16

All are Rl/o. NTR Nagar, L.B.Nagar. Saroornagar, R.R.District, Presently Ri/o. 2-3-7 341 13123, Amberpet, Hyderabad.

¶17

...APPE LLANTS/CLAIMANTS

¶18

AND

¶19

1 Gangavaram Sundarshanreddy, S/o. Ayyapu Reddy, age. Major, Occ: Business, (Owner of the Crime Bolero vehicle bearing No.AP 29TC-0550).

¶20

2 The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, represented by its Regionat Manager, lll Party Claims (HUB), 5h Floor, Suryb Towers, Opp. Zim[hana Ground, Secunderabad.

¶21

(lnsurer of the Crime vehicle of Bolero bearing No.AP 29TC-0550).

¶22

(Policy C No.61310231140100003557, valid from 06.03 2015 to 05.03 2016)

¶23

Rathlavath Jampla, S/o. Samia, age. 27 Years, Occ: Driver, N/o. Kothwal Cheruvu Thanda, (K.C.Thanda), Maheshwaram Mdl. R.R.District.

¶24

...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶25

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri. C Mohan Prakash

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri. CH. Venkata Naray;r ta

¶27

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶28

IN THE HIGH COURT r1O R STATE OF TELANGANA AT TTYDERABA.T)

¶29

HONOURABLE SRI. JUSTICE VAXITI^{RAMAXRISHNABEDDY}

¶30

M.A.C.M.A.No.4SO OF 2o/23

¶31

Between

¶32

SK. Nagur Shah and three others

¶33

... Appellants

¶34

AND

¶35

Gangavaram Sundarshanreddyandtwoothers^{...Respondents}

¶36

JUDGMENT:

¶37

Aggrieved by the Award dated 27.01.2023^{passed by the} Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal^- cum -^{X Additional Chief Judge} at Hyderabad (for short, the Tribunal) in^{M.V.O.P.No.932of 2015,} the claimant filed the present Appeal seeking^{enhancement of the} compensation awarded by the learned^Tribunal.

¶38

For the sake of convenience, the^{partieshereinafterare} referred as they were arrayed before^{t]re learned Tribunal}

¶39

I. BRIEF FACTS:

¶40

The brief facts of the case are that the^{claim petitioners,who} are husband, children and motlrer-in-law^{of SK. Thafi (hereinafter} referred. to as "the deceased") filed a claim^{petitionundcr Section} 166 oi the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read^{with section14O(c) ot} A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989 seeking compensation of^{Rs.12,OO,00O/- for} the death of the deceased i.e. SK. Thafi in^{a motorvehicle accident}

¶41

¶42

that occurred on 16.04.2015.^{As per ttre averme: -s in the claim} petition, on 16.04.2O15 at about^{IO.OO AM the dec,:.sed along with} her husband i.e.,^{the claim petitioner No. I by na;r e NagurShafi,} were proceeding towards Kothapet^{Rythubazar frorrL.B. Nagaron} a motorcycle bearing registration^{No. AP-29-BV-9!rr'8. When they} reached in front of L.B. Nagar^{Indoor Stadium at all rut 10.00 a.m.,} a Bolero vehicle bearing registration^{No' AP-29-TC-)iSO proceeding} in the same direction at high^{speed, in a rash and negligent} manner, dashed the^{motorcyclefrom behind wit rout obsewing} traffic rules. Due to the^{said impact, t.lle motorcyclt: iell on the road} and deceased, who^was a^{pillionrider, was draggec:o a distanceof} 15 feet, sustaining abdomen^{broken injury, head r jury and other} blunt injuries all over^her body.^{Her husband,t re rider of the} motorcycle, sustained simple^{injuries. After th:accident,the} deceased was shiltcd^{to Ozone hospital, Kothapel, Hyderabad for} treatment, where the claim^{petitionerNo.l,s I )nt asumof} Rs.80,00O/ - towards trcatment^{and medicalexper ses' However,} the deceased succumbcd to^{injuriesthe szi 1e day while} undergoing treatment.

¶43

The Policc L.B.Nagar registered a^case in^{Cli ne No.465/15,} for the offences under Sections 304-A & 337 IPC.^{Tl e deceasedSK.} Thafi was aged about 33 years at the time of accider t, she^{was hale} and healthy, young and energetic and not suf't ring from^any

¶44

¶45

¶46

ailments. Prior to accident, the deceased was working as a flower vendor earning Rs. 12,000/- per month, contributing to the family. Due to her sudden death, the claim petitioners, who were totally dependent on the income of the deceased, became destitute. There are no other persons to look after them and to see their welfare and they lost their life guard and bread winner; their life was badly affected; the unmarried petiLioners lost their future prospects including education and marriage; they lost their further income of Rs.20,00O/- per month. After the said accident, the petitioner No.l also developed chronic illness due to trauma. The peLitioners incurred expenses towards transportation, post-mortem, cremation, obsequies and other incidental charges ald sought a total compensation of Rs. I2,00,000/-.

¶47

Respondent No.l is the owner of the offending vehicle and the respondent No.2 is the insurer of the said offending vehicle i.e., bolero bearing No.AP-29-TC-0550, whereas, tlte respondent No.3 is the driver of the vehicle. Thus, it was claimed that all the three are jointly and scvcrally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.

¶48

The respondent No.l and 3 remaind, exparte before the Tribunal

¶49

¶50

Respondent No.2 hled a counter denying t re averments in tl.e claim petition including involvement of tt.r vehicle in the accid€nt, the alleged rash and negligence on the ; art of the driver of the offending vehicle and the age and avocation of the deceased. It was further contended that the drivers of bott rhe vehicles i.e., bolero bearing No. AP-29-TC-O55O and the motor'< ycle bearing No. AP-29-BV-9958, did not possess valid license at the time of the accident. It was further contended that the com[x nsation claimed by the claimants was excessive and thus, prayerl for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶51

U. ISSUES FRAMED BY THE TRIBUNAL:

¶52

Based on the above pleadings, the learne I Tribunal had framed the following issues

¶53

t. Whether tlrc deceosed SK Thafi. died in tL z road accid.ent tuhich occurred on 16.04.2O15 due to th.e rtt. h and negligent diuing of the diuer of Bolero beaing No.AP 2 Lrc O55O?

¶54

lt. Wether the petitioners are entitled to anA con pensation, if so, to uhat dmount and from uthom?

¶55

ut. To uhat relieJ?

¶56

IIL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL:

¶57

Before the learned Tribunal, on behalI of the claim petitioners, PWs I and 2 werc examined and E> l .A1 to A8 were marked and on behalf oi the contesting respcr dents, no oral

¶58

) \

¶59

¶60

evidence was adducd^{except producing Ex. Bl i'e', copy of the} insurance PolicY

¶61

lO. After considering^{the entireoral and documentaryevidence,} the learned Tribunal^{allowed the claim petition against respondent} Nos. 1 to 3 and awarded^{compensation of Rs'5,36,759/-along with} interest@9o/operannumfromthedateofthepetitiontillthedate of realization.^{Aggrievedby the quantum, the claimants preferred} the present appeal^{seekingenhancementof compensation'}

¶62

I1. Heard Sri^{C. Mohan Prakash, learned counselfor the} appellants/claimants,^{Sri Ch. Venkata Narayana,learnedcounsel} for respondent^{No.2/Insurance Companyand perused the record} including the^{grounds of aPPeal.}

¶63

The learned^{counsel for Appellants/claimants submittedthat} though the claimant^{petitioners proved their case by adducing} cogent and convincing^{oral evidcnce of PWs Iand 2 coupled with} documentary^{evidence undcr Exs'A Ito A8, and the learned} Tribunal without^{considenngthe same, awarded meageramount'} Therefore, the^{learned counsel prayed for enhancementof the} compensation.^{Per con[ra, the learned counselfor ttre respondent} No.2 contended^{that after considering all the aspects,the learned} Tribunal has^{awarded reasonable compensation,andno} interference of^{this Courtis w'arranted'}

¶64

¶65

1 i I i

¶66

rv. POINT FIOR DTTERIU INATION:

¶67

Now the point for consideration is

¶68

Whether the impugned award passed ry the learned Tribunal needs any interference of this Court?

¶69

V. ANALYSIS:

¶70

It is contended by the learned counr;, I for the claim petitioners/appellants that the learned Tribunar lailed to accept the income of the deceased as a flower /endor earning Rs. 12,000/- P.M. In this regard, reliance wa; placed on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in S.: .v Kumar M. v. Managiag Director, Bengaluru Metropol:t an ltausport Cotporatlont, wherein the monthly income ol painter at Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 16,5O0 / - P.M., accepted without ,r ry income proof. It is pertinent to note that in the above said decis,i >n, the claimant self assessed his monthly income as Rs- l5,OOO, to Rs.16,500/and whereas the Honourable Supreme Courr asses sed the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.15,000/-. In the i rstant case, the deceased, who was a flower vendor, rvas not a ski iul labour when compared to the profession of a painter. Hence, t re principle laid down in the above said decision cannot bc madc i pplicable to the facts of the present case.

¶71

'^{(2017) 5 Supreoe CourtCases79}

¶72

¶73

In order^{to provethe income of the deceased,the claimants} examined the^{claimantNo. 1 as PW1 , who had reiterated the} averments of^{the claim petition includingthe monthly income of} the deceased.^{Apart from the evidenceof PWI} '^{the claimants} examined^{PW2, who categorically deposed that the deceased} SK. Thali,^{was working as a flower Vendor'PW2 furttrerdeposed} thatthedeceasedusedtosellandpurchaseflowersfromhershop, prepare all varieties^{of flower (garlands) "malas"was an expert in} decorative floral^{designs for various events,functionsand} marriages.^{PW2 also statedthat had the deceased bein alive' she} would have earned^{a monthlyincome of Rs'20,OO0/-'She further} deposed that^{she used to engagethe servicesof deceased for} various events and^{used to pay an amount of Rs'15'O00/-per} event.

¶74

There is^{no disputethat the deceasedwas engaged in the} avocationofaflowervendor-Aspertheclaimpetition'the claimants claimed^{that the deceased used to earn Rs'l2'00O1-per} month. But as^{per the version of PW2, she used to engage the} services of deceased^{for various events and that the deceased used} to earn Rs.15,OO0/-^{per event Thus,the evidenceof PWs I and 2} is not entirely^{consistent regarding the monthlyincome of the} deceased. Further,^{the evidenceof PW2disclosesthat the income} of the deceased^{was not regular. The claimants have alsonot}

¶75

¶76

I i t II I I Ii i i i i iI i I I I I i I I I I I

¶77

produced any documentary evidence to establish t rat the deceased used to earn Rs.l2,OOO/- per month on regular basis. In these circumstances, the learned Tribunal declinec to accept the evidence of PWs I and 2 regarding monthlf income of the deceased. At the same time, the monthly incom: of the deceased as fxed by the leamed Tribunal at the rate cf Rs-2,OOO/- per month appears to be on the lower side. On thr rther hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company relied upon a decision of the Honourable Supreme Corr t in Malakappa and others v. IIfco - Tokio Genetal Insu r Lnce Company Limited and another2 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the High Court in enhan< ng the monthly income of a coolie from Rs.7,O00/- (as frxed by he Tribunal) to Rs.8,000/- per month. Following the said prir t iplc, a notional income of Rs.8,0OO/- per month is considered ar;ropriate in the present case keeping in view of the above discussic r u,ith regard to monthly income of the deceased. Thus, the ann r rl income o[ the deceased cornes to Rs.96,0OO/- (Rs.8,O00/ - x 2). Since the claimants are four in number, one-fourth of the esr rblished income has to be deducted towards personal and living 'xpenses of the deceased. After deducting one-fourth establishec ncorne tou,ards personal and triving expenses of the deceased, the r ctual income of the deceased comes to Rs.72,0O0/- (Rs.96,000/- - 1 s.2a,00O/ ).

'^{2025no ttog}

The learned Tribunal^{rightlyfixedthe age of the deceased as} 33 years as on ttle date^{of accident by considering Exs.Al arrd A4} i.e., FIR and charge sheet.^{A perusalof Exs.A3 and A4 also} discloses tlre age of^{the deceasedas 33 years. It is settledprinciple} of law that^{4Oo/o of the established incomemustbe added towards} "future^{prospects"for persons below40 years,including those who} are self-employed.^{Since the deceasedwas aged about 33 years} was self employed, future^{prospe cts} @^{4Oo/ocan be considered as} rightly held by learned^{Tribunal.After consideringfuture} prospects @ 4Oo/o, the income of the^{deceasedwould come to} Rs.1,0o,8oo/-^{(Rs'72,000/-+Rs'28,800/- i'e''4oo/o of} Rs.72,o0O/-).

¶82

Further, as deceased^{was aged 33 years,the appropriate} multiplier applicable in^{the present case u'ould b€'16'in view of} the principle laid down^{in the decisionof the Honourable Supreme} court in Sarla Verma^{v. Delhi Transport Corporation3'After} multiplying the annual^{income of the deceasedwith the relevant} multiplier, the claimants^{are entitled to a sum of Rs'16,12,800/-} (Rs.1,OO,8OO/- x 16)^{towardsloss ofdependency'}

¶83

It is further^{contended by the learned counsel for the} appellants/claimants^{that the learned Tribunalought to have} awarded higher compensation^{under the Heads of Loss of Estate}

¶84

3 AIR 20@ sc 3104

¶85

¶86

and Funeral expenses. However, the learned Trit,r nal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.77,000/- towards convention Ll heads, which include compensation towards funeral expenses, Lt rs of estate and loss of consortium, by following the principle laid cr wn in National Insurance Company Llmlted v. pranay Sethi arr, I othersa. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants fu r her contended that the learned Tribuna.l awarded only Rs.4O,C( O/- + T,OOO/(1O7o extra) under the head of consortium, whereas as per Magma General Insurancc Company Limtted v. Nanuu ams, the four claimants are entitled for Rs.40,000 l- each towarc r consortium to a tune of Rs. 1,60,0O0/-.

¶87

It is to be seen from the record that the clairr rnt No. I being the husband of the deceased was awarded Rs.4(r )O0,/ - to\r,ards spousal consortium by the learned Tribunal. Hou,r r er, no amount was awarded to claimant Nos.2 and 3 (minor chil,1 en) under the head of parental consortium. Therefore, the claimz r t Nos.2 ancl 3, who were minors by the date of the accident, t.e entitled for Rs.88,0OO/- (Rs.aO,OOO/- each + lOyo enhancemerr ) towards loss of parental consortium. Since claimant No.4 being t te mother _ in - Iaw of the dcceased, is not entitled for any am() rnt under the head of 'consortium'. Thus, the contention of the ir rrncd counsel for the appellants/claimants that the four claimant:; are entrtled to

¶88

r (20 r 7) 16 scc 680 '^{20 r8 ACJ2782SC}

¶89

¶90

¶91

Rs.4O,OOO/- each towards consortium to a tune of Rs.1,6O,OOO/-, is untenable.

¶92

The claimants sought reimbursement of medical bills under Exs.A7 and A8 for Rs.41,9OO/- and Rs. 14,659/- respectively, and the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the said amounts.

¶93

Thus, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of

¶94

Rs.18,34,359/- under various heads and the details of which are

¶95

as under:

¶96

S.	N	o. Descriptionofhead	Amount(Rs.l
1		LossofDependency	Rs.16,12,800/-
2		ConventionalHeadsawardedto ClaimantNo.1	Rs 77,OOOI-
J		Parentalconsortiumto claimantNos.3and4	Rs BB,0oo/-
4.		MedicalbillsunderExs.A7 &A8	Rs.56,559/-
Tota	l		Rs.18,34,359/-

¶97

The learned counsel for the claim petitioners/ appellants further contended that the Tribunal ought to have awarded interest 127o instead of 9o/o P.A., relying upon the Apex Court Judgment in Itlew Indla Assurance Company Limited v. Gopali and others6 and also Magma's case (supraf .

¶98

It is to be noted that Section 17 I of the Motor Vehicle Act does not prescribe any fixed rate of interest. Courts - be it the

¶99

,5 2012 ACJ.2l3l S.C

¶100

¶101

Tribunal, High Court or Honourable Supreme^Coutl have awarded varying rate of interest based on the facts and^c..t tumstances of each case. No principle could be deduced nor^r: m any rate of interest be hxed to have a^general applicationⁱⁿ notor accident claim cases having regard to the nature of^provisior under Section 17 I of the Motor Vehicle Act conferring discr,: ion upon the Tribunal in such manner. The rate of interest mt st be^just and reasonable depending upon the facts and circums -ances of^each case. Further, in Oriental Insurance Company^)! Eited v. Niru @^{Niharika and othersTthe Honourable Apex Ccr} rt observed as

¶102

under:

¶103

"8. Furllrer contention taken is tte higher rate tf interest of 9o/o, in clwllenge of uthich seuera)^precedents were^plac 'd before us. From the decisions perused wtat emarlotes is that^tr the 1980's, Courts were awarding 12oZ interest uhich stood reduc<'t to 9o/o in the 199O's. With the aduent of tte 21st century and^I te economic recesston world over, the interest rotes fell ansiderc I '.A. But^euen now the rates offered bg National Banks Ior^longtet'r,7 deposits are 7(% or more. Consideing th.e ouer-all ciranmstances^e peciallg the long delag caused ue are of the oPinion that^9o,4 nterest rate granted bA the Tribunal is perfedlg in order espectal 1 noticing the accident having occurred in the gear 1995."

¶104

[n view of the principle laid down in the^af<r esaid^decision, this Court is of the considered opinion that^{the rz.t} :^{of interestas} awarded by the learned Tribunal at 9o/o^{per anr.r} im^{is just and} reasonable and interference of this Court is unwar'r^{anted so far :rs} ratc of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal.

'zozs tttsc^gzz

VI. CONCLUSION

In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the c{aimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal as indicated above.

¶109

VII. RESULT:

¶110

) \

¶111

In the result, the Appeal is allowed in part, enhancing [he compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal from Rs.5,36,759l- to Rs. 18,34,359/- which shall carry inrerest ar 9%o per annum from the date of frling of the petition till the date of realization payable by the respondents jointly and severally. Since, the claimant Nos.2 and 3 were minors as on the date of filing the petition as well as on the date of passing the award, the learned Tribunal directed that the compensation awarded to the minors be deposited in any nationalized bank until they attain the majority_ As more than ten years have passed from the date of filing the petition, the claimant Nos.2 and 3 would now have cer[ainly attained the age of majority.

¶112

( I

¶113

2a. Out of the totrl compensation, the claimant No. 1 is aw,arded an amount of Rs. 11,34,359/-, the Claimant Nos.2 and 3 are awarded an amount of Rs.3,0O,OO0 l- each and the Clairnant No.4, who is the rnother-in-law of the deceased, is awarded an amount of Rs. 1,O0,00O/-.

¶114

¶115

The respondents are^{directedto depositthe enhanced} amount within a period of two^{months fromthe da-r of receipt of a} copy of this^judgment. On^{such deposit, all tht: claimantsare} entitled to withdraw their respective^{sharet; out ofthe} compensation awarded by this^{Court. There shall tx no order as to} costs.

¶116

As a sequel, the pending miscellaneous^pe -itions, if^any, shall stand closed.

¶117

Sd/. I,I JAWAHAR REDDY ASS,I ;TANT REGISTRAR /.

,.. _-./

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

The Motor Accidents Tribunal-cum-X Additional Chi^rf Judge,^{City Civil} Courts at Hyderabad. (with Records if any)

¶123

One CC to SRl. C Mohan Prakash, Advocate IOPUCI

¶124

One CC to Sri. CH. Venkata Narayana, Advocate [OPUo

¶125

Two CD Copies

Pr/kam

i I ,i

HIGH COURT

DATED:1211212025

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.450 of 2023

lHE S TA
trl;'
o
v
(.)
6 [{:B 2m
*
P,qTCt

¶135

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MAGMA

¶136

ArL
2,o

¶137

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶138

FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE

¶139

PRESENT

¶140

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

¶141

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 450 OF 2023

¶142

Between:

¶143

SK. Nagur Shafi, S/o. Jhony Basha, age 38 Years, Occ: Flower collection, Presently. Nil,

¶144

SK. Bashida, D/o. Nagur Shafi, age .^'14 Years, Occ: Student.

¶145

SK. Hasina, Db. Nagur Shafi, age . 11 Years, Occ: Student.

¶146

SK. Shamshad Begum, Wo. Late Jhony Basha, age: 60 Years, Occ: Nil. (Petitioners No.2 and 3 being minors represented by their natural father and guardian Petitioner No.1 by name SK. Nagur Shafi). All are Ri./o. NTR Nagar, L3.Nagar. Saroornagar, R.R.District, Presently Ri/o. 2-3-734113123'Amberpet'Hyderabad'

¶147

...A''ELLANTS/.LATMANTS

¶148

AND

¶149

Gangavaram Sundarshanreddy, S/o. Ayyapu Reddy, age. Major, Occ: Business, (Owner of the Crime Bolero vehicle bearing No.AP 29TC-0550).

¶150

2 The New India Assurance Company Limited, represented by its Regional Manager, lll Party Claims (HUB), 5'n Floor, Surya Towers, Opp. Zimkhana Ground, Secunderabad.

¶151

(lnsurer of the Crime vehicle of Bolero bearing No.AP 29TC-0550). (Policy C No.61310231140100003557, valid from 06.03.2015 to 05.03.2016)

¶152

3 Rathlavath Jampla, S/o. Samia, age. 27 Years, Occ: Driver, N/o. Kothwal cheruvurhanda,(K.c.rhanda),*rn".*e'.EgbBoni#Srr#[:!"oNDENrs

¶153

Aopeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act., aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated. 27 41-2f.23 in M.V.O.P.No. 932 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Tribunal-cum-X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts^at Hyderabad.

¶154

This appeal is coming on for hearing and upon^perusing the^grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the^{material papersin the} Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. C Mohan Prakash, advocate^{for the} Appellant and of Sri. CH. Venkata Narayana, Advocate for the Respondent^No.2.

¶155

That this Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶156

That this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be rnd hereby is allowed in part, enhancing the compensation amount awardet! by the Tribunal from Rs.5,36,759/- to Rs.'t8,34,359/- which shall carry intel st at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of reali :ation payable by the respondents^jointly and severafly;

¶157

That the claimant Nos.2 and 3 were minors as on the da e of filing the petition as well as on the date of passing the award, the lear red Tribunal directed that the compensation awarded to the minors be deposit :d in any nationalized bank until they attain the majoriV;

¶158

That as more than ten years have passed from the dat : of filing the petition, the claimant Nos.2 and 3 would now have certainl/ attained the age of maiority;

¶159

That out of the total compensation, the claimant No.'l il awarded an amount of Rs.1 1,34,3591, the Claimant Nos.2 and 3 are av arded an amount of Rs.3,00,0001 each and the claimant No.4, who is th: mother-in-law of the deceased, is awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-;

¶160

That the respondents be and hereby are directed to r eposit the enhanced amount within a period of two months from the date of |r ceipt of a copy of this judgment;

¶161

That on such deposit, all the claimants be and hereby tr e entitled to withdraw their respective shares out of the compensation award€( by this Court;

¶162