The High Court · 2025

Judgment

-_--.ad'-- ') THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOIIIUDDIN M.A.C.M.A.No.168 0F 2()21 JUDGMENT: Dissatisfie<l g'ith the quantum of compensation awarded by Lhc learned XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad in M.V.O.P.No.2054 ol 2015 by the order and decree dated o8.O9.2020, the petitioners have filccl the present Appeal seek'rr; c'nIl:,1l( ( ln( nI ol compensation.

F-or thc sake of convenience, the parties hereinzrfter are referrecl to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal'

3. l'he brie I facts of the case are lhat the petitioners have hlerL rhc claim pctition claiming compensation of Rs 2O,00,00O/ - (Rupces twenn' Iakhs only) from respondent Nos'1, 2 and 3 for the dezrth of the deceased viz., "J-Vijay Kumar" Petitioner No' l is thr: rnother, petitioner No.2 is the father, petitioner Nos'3 and 4 arc the sisters of the deceased. The reason assigned by the petitioners for the death of the deceased is that on 29 07 '2OL5 at about I :0O am, ri'hen the deceased was proceeding on his motorbike from Kushaiguda to Nagaram Village and reached Sri Abhaya Anjaneya SwamY Temple Kaman, S.V.Nagar, the f 2 GMM,J MACMA.No- I68 of 2021 driver of tipper vehicle bearing No.A.p.29.T.8997 was negligently stationed in the middle of the road without switching on the parking lights, indicators or placing any precautionary signs or warning boards. The absence of such mandatory precautions rendered the vehicle unidentifiable in the darkness. Consequently, the deceased, while proceeding on the said road, failed to notice the stationed tipper, collided with it from the rear side; and sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same on the spot.

4. Based on a complaint, the police, Kesara Police Station, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, registered First Information Report No.223 of 2O15 under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 against driver of the crime vehicle i.e., tipper bearing No.A.P.29.T.8 997 andafter investigation filed charge sheet.

5. According to the pelitioners, the deceased was aged about 22 years at the time of accident and was working as Sub-Staff, Central Recovery Cell, Kapil Chit Fund Private Limited, Secunderabad and used to earn Rs. 15,00O/- per month. It was stated that the petitioners were majorly dependant on the income of the deceased ald due to his sudden demise in the said accident, the family suffered a lot and lost a young earning 3 GMM,J MACMA.No.168 of 2O21 family member, his love and affection and were left in misery' Thereforc, the petitioners as dependants of the deceased, hled claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 2O,00,0OO/ - (Rupees twenn lakhs only) irgainst all the respondenLs lointly and severallv.

6. The respondenl Nos. 1 and 2 were set ex parte T|r-e respondent No-3-lnsrtrancc Company filed counter denying the manncr of accident. age, avocation. earning capacity, relati,rrrship ol petilioners rvith thc deceased, negligence, involvcment of crime vehicle in the accident, rash and negligt:n<:e of crime vehicle and called for strict proof of the samr'. It rt,:rs r:ontendcd that the driver of the said tipper was not hairing a valid driving license at the time of accidenr" and respondent No. I got insurable interest in the vehicle and also he u,as not in possession of requisite documents, such as, RC, valicl permit :rnd fitness certificate; and seriously disputed the issuzrnce of any insurance policy by the respondent company in favour of owner of the crime vehicle. It was further contended th..rt the occurre ncc of accident was not reported by the insured or driver of crime vehicle on the date of accident. Therefore, respondent No.3 shall be permitted to take all necessary defense as contemplated under Sections l7O-P , 147 and 149 of Motor 4 \ GMM.I MACMA.No.168 of 2o2i Vehicles Act, 19gg. It was contended that compensation claimed 1s excessive, exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 7 Based on the rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed the following three issues i) Wrctner the d.eceased J. VUaAa Kumar S/o J. Deuadhanam d_ted on 29.07.2015 due to the rosh and negligent d.nuing of th,e diuer of tipper beaing No.Ap. 2 9. T. 8997? it) Wtether the petitioners (lre entitled J.or amperusation? If so, hout much and. from uthom? To uhat reliep iii) 8 During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioners, the petitioner No. 1 got examined herself as p.W. I apart from exarnrnlng P.Ws.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.Al to A9. On behalf of respondent No.3, R.W. 1 was examined and Ex.Bl was marked.

9. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentar5r evidence on record partiy alowed the craim petition in favour of the petitioners/claimants by awarding a tota_l compensation of Rs' 10,82,ooo/- (Rupees ten lakhs eighty two thousald on\r) with interest at Z.So/o per annum from the date of claim petition 5 GMM,J MACMA.No 168 of 2021 till the date of deposit holding that respondent Nos' 1 to 3 are j ointl-v liable to pay the compensation amount Aggrieved bY the reduced c{uantunl of compensation' the petitroners hled the presenl Appeal seeking enhancement of compensatton 1O. Heard Sri A-V K'S Prasad' learned counsel for the appellants and Sri C Buchi Reddy' Iearned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance company. The respondent Nos' 1 and 2 are sel ex porte' The main contention of the iearned counscl for rhe appellants is that though the appellants proved their case by adducrng cogent evidence apart from relyrng on the document's under trxs A1 to A9' lhe Tribunai without considering thc same has erroneously awarded meager amount' It u'as further contended that the Tribunai ought to have considered the income of the deceased based on the gross saiary and not the net salary as per Ex A6 i'e ' salary certificate and ought to have arvarded just and reasonable compensatlon' further contended that the l,earned counsel for the appeilalts Tribunal ought to have considered the sister to be included for the purpose of consortium under the head of 'filiai consortium'; and in order to support his contention' he relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mag'na r 6 \ GMM,J MACMA.No- 168 of 2O2l kneral Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. IVcnu Ro;m and. othersT, wherein 'filial consortium' has been awarded to sister and prayed to allow the appeal. I 1. Per contro, learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company has con[ended that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased and awarded just and reasonable compensation. It is also urged that the sisters of the deceased are not entitled for 'lllial consortium'; as in the instant case, principle laid doii,n in the case of Nanu Ram's case (supra) does not apply. In this regard, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has referred to para 8 of Alazu Rcm's case (supra), whereas it was rendered. that 'looking to the facts and circumstances of the case". Therefore, on the above ground, interference of this Court in the reasoned order passed by the Tribunal is unwarranted.

12. Now the point for consideration is "Whether the impugned order and decree passed by tte Tribunal calls for ang interference bg this Court? If so, uhether the appellants/ petitioners are entitled for ang e ntwnce ment of co mP ens atio n? " ' 2ot8 Ac) 2782 v 7 GMM,J MACMA-No- 168 of 2o21 'l 3. He ard botl-r sides and perused the record

14. lt is Pcrtinenl to note that respondent No'2 has not Jh.u..rgi,-rg the impugned order dated preferred anY APPezrl 08.09.2020. There is no dispute rvith regard to the relationship betr.r'een the petitioners and the deceased' There is also no in which the accident disputc with regartl to the manner The Tribunal bv relyrng on the oral evidence of P W' 1 of the dcceased) coupled with the documentary under Ex Al (FIR), tsx A2 (Charge Sheet)' Ex A3 (inquest Re port) has arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred only due to the negligent act of the driver of the crime occurred. evide rt ce (mo rher vehicle,whoparkecltheCrimevehiclei.e.,Tipperinthemiddle of the road nithout anv indication or precautions and not due to ' favour ol the any other re?tsons and answered the same ln petitioners

15. The firsl and tbremost contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that though the deceased was earning Rs.15,O0O/- per month working as Sub-staff' Central Recovery Cell, Kapil Chit Fund Private Limited' Secunderabad; as per Ex.A6 (i.e., salary certihcate), the Tribunal has erroneously consideredthenetsalary(i.e.,Rs.6,ooo/-permonth)insteadof 8 GMM,J MACMA.No.168 of 2O21 gross sala-ry (i.e., Rs. 1O,174/-per month) of the deceased and awarded very meager amount towards compensation.

16. It is an admitted fact that the appellants have proved the income of the deceased by relying upon Ex.A6-salary certificate, wherein it is categorically mentioned that the net salary of the deceased as Rs.5,944/- per month and gross salary as Rs. to,i74/- per month. The short question which arises for consideration in this appeal is that: "What is the appropiate amount under the caption of salary ('Net salary'or 'Gross solary') has to be taken into account for the purpose of computing the income of the deceased?"

17. Il is pertinent to discuss the distinction between a net salary and gross salary of a person. The term 'Salary' is the rcgular payment made by the employer to the employee for the work performed by him. Whereas, 'Gross salary' is inclusive of bonus, overtime pay, holiday pay and other benehts; some of the benefits includes basic salary, house rent allowance, conveyance allowance, medical allowalce, uniform allowalce, newspaper allowance, etc; on the other hand 'Net salar5r' is the income that an employee actually takes home after deducting income tax, provident fund and other deductions subtracted ') 9 GMM,J MACMA No. 168 of 2O21 from it. In this regarcl, it is relevant to refer to the observations made bv the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Ins-urdnce Cornpang Limited u. Indira Sriuasta ua and otheri2, wherein this Court obscn'ed tl-rett: '9. The lenn 'rncome lrcts d{ferent connolottons for different purposes. A court of laut, h<rwrtg reglard lo th". chaage in societol conditions ntust consi(\er the question not onlg hautng regard to pall packet the emplogce carries honte at the end of the month but olso other perks u)hich are benefcial to tte members oJ the entire family. L,<tss caused to the familg on a death of a near and deor one can hanilg be ccttrtpertsrtted ot7 fitonetary lemts.'

18. Similarly, t{on'ble Supreme Court in Meenakshi u- Oriental Insurance Compang Limiteds observed that "9. Recently it a jtdqment dated 11'Julg,2024 tn Nqtional Insuraice Cnntpartg L.td. u. Nc.l:rl qnd Ors. [Pe'tition for Speqal IEaue to Appeol (C) No.a2:10/)O191, thts Court held that, auowances wtder tle heads of transporl aLlowance, house retlt allolaonce, prouident fitnd loan, prouidenr fund and special alloLuance ought lo be added uthile consid.ering the basic salary of the uictirn/ decaa-scd to at-r[ue ot the dependency factor- 10. Therefore. conTponents of house rent alloruance, flerible benefit plaa attcl contportll cotttibuton to proutdent futld hlaue to be included in llrc salarg of tlrc deceased tuhite apptying the component of rise in rtcorne by ftlure prospects to detemline tle dependencg factor. T|rc Acctdenl Ctaims Tibunql was lustifed in foctoing these conLponents ttto the salary of the deceased, before appLging 50'o rise bq future prospects due to future prospects, uthile calculattng the total comlterrsation pagable to the appellant. 12. We, therefore, ltold that the High Court has ened uhile omitting to add the conponents of house rent alloutance, Jlexible beneft ptan and Compang contnbution to Provident futld to the bastc salary oJ the deceased white applging the pincipLe of ise in lncome bg fulure prospects. 13. Houeuer, rue ore of the opinion thot the High Court ttos lustifiecl ln deduchng [ncome Tax from the gross satary of the deceosed-Suryakqnth for calanlattng his gross income. This 'zooa(z) scc ro: ' [2024]'t s.c.R. r 43l 10 GMM,J MACMA.No. 168 of 2021 factor uas ouerlooked bg tlrc Accident Claim.s Tibunal while quantifging t he au ar d. "

19. In view of the settled proposition of law, the gross salary (i-e., Rs. l9,l74l-) of the deceased person has to be taken into consideration in determining the monthly salary/income; thus, the question posed above is answered accordingly in favour of the petitioners. The Tribunal for the purpose of computation of the monthly income considered the net income of the deceased instead of gross income. [n that view, the Tribunal erred in opining otherwise. Hence, the impugned order is hereby set- aside on the above aspect.

20. The other contention of the learned counsel for petitioners is that'filial consortium' shall be granted to appellant Nos.3 and 4, who are the srsters of the deceased. In Hdrpreet Kaur and others a. Mohinder Yadau and othersa, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para Nos. 12 and 13 has held as under:

12. The ludgment in Rapsh u. Rajbirs, uas Jollotued in other decisions. Howeuer, lhe approach tn these decisions, was disopproued bg a fiue-1udge bench decision in National Insurqnce Co. u. PranaA Sethi6, where this court indicaled uthat should be the cotrect approach in au.tarding amounts towards consortium: "52. 1...1 Therefore, ue think it seemlg to fix rea.sonable srl:rls. It seens to us that reasonable frWres on conuentional heads, namclg, loss of estate, Loss of consortium and finteroJ eryenses 'nln zoza sc rtt '1zot:; e scc sa 1zo rzy ro scc oto u .,, 11 GMM,J MACMA.No.168 of 2021 should be Rs. 15,OO0/ , Rs. 40,OOO/' and Rs. 15,000/' respectiuelg The pinciple of reusiting tle said heads is an (lcceptable pinciple. But the reuisit should not be fad-centrtc or Etantum centnc. We tllitk tlrut il trould be condign that the unTount thot we haue qtrutltified shorttd bc erLhanced otr percentage bosi.s rn eDery t.llree lJt qrs atul the etlhancemenL should be al tlrc rate oJ 1Oa.i, irt o spQrL of lluc( Aears...." ApplAitg this pinciple in Magnta General ltrsurance Co u. Nanu RamT, this courl h.eld a-s follou.ts: "20. MACT as well as the High Court hat/e ttot awarded anA compensatioru u,itlt respect to loss of consortiutt and Loss of esktte, which ore the other conuerthonal heods under uhich com.pensatian is autarded itl the eL,ettt of death, as recogn[sed bg lhe Constitution Bench n Pratru11 Sethi. 'l'he Motor Vehictes Act is a beneficiol and weVarc legislottoi. Th<t Court is dutg-bound and entitled to award "lust cotrLpensat:otl", ineqtectiue of utlether any p[ea in thol behall ut..s reised lry l]Le c[oitnQttt. In exercise of our pou)er und.?r Arlic:Ie I12, ancl in l/r(' rrlercst.s of lustice. we deem it appropiote to eLuard en ernounl of Rs Ir.O0O towards Loss of (slolc lo Resporu)enl' l attd 2. 21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in l'ranag Setfu lNatiorLal lnsurance Co- Lttl. r.' PratLall Sethl. (2o17) 16 SCC 680: (2018) 3 SCC 5 (2017) 16 SCC 680 6 (2018) 78 S(rC ,3O 7 (Ctu) 248: (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 2O5l dedtt u)tth the uanous heads under wlttch comperlsqtion is to be awqrded itt a deatlt case. Ore of these heads is loss of consortium. In legal parlance, "consortium" is a compendious ternt u.'lticlt encorlPa-sses "spousa[ consortium", "parental cotTsortiunL' , ctncl 'JiLtal cottsonlum". Th<! right to consorttunt uouLd rnclucle tlle company, care, lutlp, corn-fott, gurdance, solace and dffection of tlrc dece-ased, which is a loss lo his Jamilg. With respecl to ct spouse, it tuould include sexuql relotions urth tLLe deceased -?orr.se : lRqesh u. Rajbir Singh (2O1s) 9 SCC s4l. 21.1. Spousal cotlsorlium is generallg defned as ighls pertatling to the relationship oJ o husbond-wife uhich allows compensation to the suruiving spouse for loss of "compamg, societg, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in euery conjugal relation". [Black's Lau Dictionary $th Edn., 1979).1 21.2. Parental consortium is granted to tte child upon ttle premature death of a parent, for loss of 'perental did, protectiory affection, societg, disciplne, gu{dance ond training' . 21.3. Filial consorttum is the rtght of the parents to compensation in tte ccre of an accidental death of a child. An acadent leo.ding to the deoih of a child causes great shock and agonV to the '(2018) r8 scc l-10 12 GMM,J MACMA.No. 168 of 2021 parents @nd Jamilg of the deceased. The greatest agong for a parent is to Lose thetr chitd during their Wtime. Chtldren are ualued for their loue, affection, companionship and their role in the famtlA unit. 22. Cortsortiunr is a spedal pism reJlecting cluTngulg nomls about the status artd worth of actual reLationships. Modern jurisdictions taorldouer haue recogtised that the ualue of a child's consortium Jar exceeds the economrc ualue of the compensation ewqrded in the case of the death of a child.. Most Juisdtcttons therefore permit parents to be anuarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount aworded to the parents is a loss of the loue, ajfection, care and compensation for conpanionshtp of the deceased child. 23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislrttion aimed at providtng relief to the wctims or their famtties, in crzses of genuine claims. In case uhere a pa.rent hqs lost their rnirror child, ot unmqr'r'|ed. son or d.aughter, the p4,rents qre entltled to be q.uq.rded loss o..f corrsoralurzr- under the head of filial consortium. Parenta[ cortsortium is awqrded to children who lose tlei parents ut tnotor uelucle accidenls und,er the AcL A feu High Courts haue anuarded compensation on this count. Howeuer, there u)as no cLctitg t ith respect to th.e pinciples on rahich compensation could be qwq.rded on loss of fiLial consortium."

21. Considering the law laid down in the above case on the principles of lau, u,ith respcct to award of " consortiurt', it can be culled out as under or in other words an inference can safely be drawn that 'Consortium'can be awarded only under the head of "Spousal Consortium", "Parental Consortium" and "Filial Consortium" arrd each one of them is weli dehned as above. Persons not coming under any of above category, are not entifled to receive consortium. Grandparents, sister and brother do not fall/come within any of the category of "Spousal Consortium", "Parental Consortium" and "Filial Consortium", 13 GMM,J MACMA.No.168 of 2021 hence they are not entitled to receive consortium. In .l\Ianu Ram's case (supra 1), the Hon'ble Supreme Court awarded consortium to sistcr in the facts and circunslances of the case therein, but no general principle has been laid down that sister is entitled to receive consortium. Therefore, petitroner Nos.3 and 4 are not entitled for'filial consortium'.

22. Now rcvcrting to the issue of computation of compensation, in the present casc, thc deccascd was aged about 24 years at the time of accident, as cvident from trx.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-charge sheet, Ex.A3-Inquest rcport. The Tribunal as per the decision of the l{on'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Vertna u. Delhi Trdnsport Corporations has rightiy taken the appropriate multiplier as '18", considering the age of the deceased.

23. The Tribunal has rightly considererl thc aspect of future prospccts while calculating the compr:nsation, taking into consideration the age of the deceased i.e., 24 years old at the time of accident (i.e., below 40 years) and the dcceased being self employed and held that he is entitled for future prospects @ 4Ooh as per the decision Iaid down rn National Insurance 8 (2OO9) 6 SCC 121 I 74 GMM,J MACMA.No.168 of 2O21 Compang Llmited a. Pranag Sethl and othersg, which seems to be just and reasonable. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased with future prospects comes to Rs.14,244 l- per month (Rs.10,17a/- + Rs-4o7O/-). Since, the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of his monthly income has to be deducted towards his personal expenses and thereby, the monthly income of the deceased after deducting personal expenses comes to Rs.7,l22l-; annual income of the deceased based on the above computation comes lo Rs.85,464/ (7 ,122/- x 12 months). As stated supra, the relevant multiplier for the age of the deceased is '18'. When the annual income of the deceased after deducting his personal expenses is multiplied with the relevant multiplier, it comes to Rs. 15,38,352/- (Rs.85,a6a /- x l8). Thus, the loss of dependency on account of sudden demise of the deceased is Rs. 15,38,352l-.

24. The Tribunal as per the principle laid down in Ptanag Setht's case (supra 5), has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.4O,00O/ - each was awarded towards 'hlial consortium' to petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 (i.e., father and mother of the deceased), which is just and reasonable. Further, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 15,0O0/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 15,00O/- towards e 2017 ACJ 2700 15 GMM,J MACMA No.l6a of2021 loss of estate. However, as per the principle laid down in Pranag Sethi's case (supra 5), the appellants / petitioners are entitled to a consolidaled sum of Rs.77,OOO/- under the conventional heacls (Rs.7o,0OO/ - + lO%o enhancement thereon). Thus, the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.16,95,352/- (Rs.r5,38,3521- + Rs.77,O00l + 3g,ggg/- (r.e., 40,OO0/ each to petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 'filial consortiumJ

25. It is to bc seen that out of the initiallv awarded compensation of Rs. 10,82,OO0/-, the Tribunal ar,r'arded Rs.3,00,0OO/- to petitioner No.1, who is mother of the deceascd and Rs-3,82,000/- to petiLioner No.2, who is father of the dcceased. The Tribunal further directed that out of their rcspet:tive shares, a sum of Rs. 1,OO,O00/ each by petitioner Nos.1 and 2 shall be kept in Iixed deposit for a period of two years and they u'ere permitted to withdraw the remaining amount of their share along with accrued interest and proportionate costs of their entire share. Further, a sum of Rs.2,O0,0OO/- each was awarded to petitioner Nos.3 and 4, who are the sisters of the deceased. The Tribunal further directed that out of the awarded sum to petitioner Nos.3 and 4, a sum of Rs.1,O0,OOO/- shall be kept in fixed deposit for a period of two years ancl they were permitted to withdraw the remaining 76 GMM,J MACMA.No.168 of202l amount of their share along with accrued interest and proportionate costs of their entire share. It is pertinent to note that by this day the time frame of two years fxed by the Tribunal with regard to the deposit of part of compensation amount in any nationalized bank has expired.

26. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is required to be modihed to the extent of above observations.

27. In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs. 10,82,000/- to Rs.16,95,3521-, which shall carry interest @l 7.5%o per annum from the date of Frling of the claim petition till the date of realization. The respondents are directed to deposit the said enhanced compensation after duly deducting the amount already deposited/withdrawn, if any, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the petitioner No. 1 i.e., mother and petitioner No.2 i.e., father of ttre deceased is awarded an amount of Rs.5,47,5O0/- each and the petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are awarded an amount of Rs.3,OO,176/- each. The petitioners are entitled to withdraw t7 GMM,J MACMA.No.168 of 2021 the entire amount awarded to them without furnishing any securiLy. There shall l>e no order as to costs Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pcnding shall stand closecl. SO/-M. JAWAHAR REODY ASSIST NT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The chairman Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-XXV Additional chief Judge, Crty Civrl Court, HYderabad 2 One CC to SRI A.V K.S.PRASAD Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI C BUCHI REDDY' Advocate IOPUC] 4 Two CD CoPies AS/nvb Yt< HIGH COURT DATED:26 t0912025 JUDGMENT+DECEREE MACMA.No.168 of 2021 oR Tii r t o U ., )'- .:r 1o il/ifr 2w (f. 4 L MACMA IS PARTLY ALLOWED WITHOUT COSTS N 6d'" i i I t I I I : i I [ 34841 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY,THE TWENW SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 168 OF 2021 Between:

1. Smt. P.Vijaya, Wo J.Devadhanam, A,/a 47 yearc, occ. Household, 2. Sri. J.Devadhanam, s/o Late.J.Narasaiah, fua.53 years, occ. Labour 3. Kum.J Amrutha Rani, d/o J.Devadhanam , Na 28 years, occ. Household, 4. Kum.J J.Sony, d/o J.Devadhanam , Na 27 years, occ. -Nil- (All are residing at H.No.6-14711 , Simhapuri Colony, Nagaram Village, Keesara, Rangareddy District) ,l..AppellanUPetitioners AND '1 . J.Srrnivas, S/o J.Sailu, Age. Major, Occ. Driver, Rl lo H No. 1-33, Solipet Village,Dommalaramam, Nalgonda District (Driver of Vlehicle).

2. ih.Narasimha Reddy, Sio Ch.Buchi Reddy,. Age Maior, Occ. Business, R./o H.No. 1 074iA, Ramavaram BC Colony,Husnabad, Karimnagar District (Owner of Vehicle).

3. M/s.shriram General lnsurance Co. ltd,, Rep. by its Manager (Legal), H.No. 3-6-517, Flat No.401 to 403,Sai Datha Arcade, Sai Vihar, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. ... Respondents Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.2054 ol 2O15 dated 08.09.2020 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the argument of Sri A.V.K.S.Prasad, Advocate for the ------ * =7J, Appellant and Sri C.Buchi Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.3, and none appeared for Respondent Nos.1 and2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 'l That the IMotor Accident Civil l\rl iscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is partly Allowed, by enhancing from Rs.'10,82,0001 to Rs.16,95,3521 which shall carrv interest 7.5o/o pet annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till date of realization. 2 That the respondents be and hereby are directed to deposit the said enhance compensation after duly deducting the amount already deposrUwithdraw, if any, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judg ment

3. That on such deposit, the petitioner No.1 i.e., mother and petroner No.2 i.e., father of the deceased is awarded an amount of Rs.5,47,500/- each and the petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are awarded an amount of Rs.3,00,176/- each. 4 That the petitioners be and hereby are entitled to withdraw the entire amount awarded to them without furnrshing any security. 5 That save as aforesaid. the decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all other respects. and

6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/.M. JAWAHAR REDDY SSI TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman l/otor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. Two CD Copies AS/nvb (Y - HIGH COURT DATED:2610912025 ( * IHE SI4I€ i B rr,Iq 1026 SPAT z C)! t DECEREE MACMA.No.168 of 202'l MACMA IS PARTLY ALLOWED WITHOUT COSTS ,"8?a u &*