Insurance company further contencled that in Nqtional Insurq.nce Compang Limited v. pranag Setht otherst, thc Hon'ble Supreme court held that addition torvards futur

Judgment

3. 4 ( 6 7 The Cholamandalam Nil S General lnsurance Co. Ltd., Represented by its Manager, Door No.2-3-184 and 185/A, 1st Floor, Satguru Arcade, Beside Venkal Reddy Eye Hospital, Kaman Road, Karimnagar City ...AppellanURespondent No.3 Boinr Eshwaramma, Wo Late Mallaiah, Age. 42 years, Occ. Labourer Boini Niranjan, S/o Late Mallaiah, Age. 25 years, Occ. Labourer Boini Kranthi Kiran, S/o Late Mallaiah, Age.22 years, Occ. Student All are Ryo H.No.5-35/1, Renikunta Village, Thtmmapur Mandal, Karimnagar . . . R€spondeart Nss. t to 3i PetitioneE Choppari Sadaiah, S/o Lrngaiah, Age. 38 years, Occ. Driver of Offending Lorry bearing No. AP 23 Y 6691, R/o H.No.4-85, Chinnakalvala Village, Sulthanabad Mandal, Peddapalli District (Previously Karimnagar District) Eraveely Damodar Rao, S/o Gopal Rao, Age. 60 years, Occ. Business and Owner of Offending Lorry bearing No. AP 23 Y 6691, R/o H.No.3-2-1, Rangapalli Village, Peddapalli District (Previously Karimnagar District) ... Respondent Nos.4 & 5/ Respondent Nos.1 & 2 Gonela Shankar @ Shankaraiah, S/o Rajaiah, Age. 28 years, Occ. Driver of Offending Tractorlearing No. AP 36 AR 4913 and Trailer bearing No. AP 36 AR 4912; R/o H.No.4-113/1 , Renrkunta Village, Thimmapur Mandal, Karimnagar District Eluka Raiu, S/o Komuraiah, Age. 35 years, Occ. Bustness and Owner of Offsnding Tractor. bearing No. AP 36 AR 4913and Trailer b€aring No'. AP 36 AR 4912; R/o H.No.6-21, Renikunta Village, Thimmapur mandal, Karimnagar District ...Respondent Nos.6 & 7/ Respondent Nos.4 & 5 MACMA No.475 of 2020 Between:

1. Boini Eshwaramma, Wo Late Mallaiah. aged 46 Years, () c Labour 2 Boini t,liranjan S/o Late MallaiEih, aged 29 Years, Occ L: rour 3. Boini Krantt-i Krran, S/o Late Mallaiah, aged 26 Years, O; . Student All are R/o H No.5-35/'1 , Renikunta village Thimmapur randal Kanmnagar district. ...Ap ellants/Petitioners AND 1 2 3 4 Choppari Sadarah. S/o Lingaiah. aged 38 Years. Occ Drl bearing No. AP-23-Y-6691. H No.4-85, Chinnakalvala vil i mandal of Peddapalli District (previously Karimnagar Dis r Eraveely Damodar Rao, S/o Gopal Rao. aged 64Years. (- owner of off -"nding lorry bearing No. AP-23-Y-6691. R/o - Rangapalli !'illage of Sulthanabad mandal Peddapalli distr Karimnagar District) :r of offending lorry le of sulthanabad It) :c Business and No 3-2-1 , )t (previously The Cholamandalam MS General lnsurance Company L r by its Manager, Door No 2-3-184 and 185/A, 1st floor, S€ I Besrde Venkat Reddy Eye Hospital, Kaman Road, Karim' Policy No 3379101237625/000/00 valid lrom 2510812015 t Gonela Shankar @ Shankaraiah, S/o Rajaiah, aged 32 \ r ofrending tractor bearing No. AP-36-AR-4913/Trailer bea' 4912, Rlo H No.4-113/1, Renikunta village of Thimmapur district. ited, Represented uru Arcade, rgar Crty Vide 24t08t2016 :rs. Occ. Drrver of rg No AP-36-AR- randal Karimnagar Eluka Raju. S/o Komuraiah, aged 39 Years, Occ. Busine; offending tractor bearing No. AP-36-AR-4913/ Trailer be;r 4912, Rio H No.6-21, Renikunta village of Thimmapur mzr diskict and owner of rg No. AP-36-AR- dal Karimnagar ... Respo n c -.nts/ Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant in MACMA No. 379 of 2020 and Respondent No.3 in MACMA No. 475 of 2020: SRI A RAMA[,:| TISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in MACMA No.379 of 2020 and Appellants in MACMA No. 475 of 2020: SRI GUDI MADHUSLI )HAN REDDY The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.Nos.379 and,475 of 2O2O COMMON JUDGMENT: M.A.C.M.A.No.379 of 2O2O is fiied by the Cholamandalam M.S.General Insurance Compary Limitecl and M,A.C.M.A.No.47S of 2O2O rs filed by Jhe Claimants against the Au,ard and decree passed by the chairman, Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-l AddI.District Judge, Karimnagar, (hereinafter referreci to ,learned TribunalJ in M.V.O.P.No.612 of 2016, dated 03.01.2020. The claimants had filed the claim petition under Secrion 166 (1)(c) of M.V.Act, l98B seeking compensation of Rs.16,00,000/- on account of death of Sri B.Mallaiatr, (herein after referred as 'deceased') who died in Motor vehicle accident occurred on 30.06.20 16.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinaJter referred to as they are arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

3. The brief lacts of the case are that the deceased along with others rvent for loading sa,d in tractor bearing No.Ap-36-AR -49l3lrrailer bearing No.AP-36-AR -4972, while returning the deceased and workers ( l 1 2 la4,r M 1 :.M.A.Nos.379 d!d1115-ot 2020 sat on tractors' trailer and when the tractor reach d Venkateshwara Srvam-v Temple, the driver of the offending lorry be rrin g No. AP-23 Y 6691 drove it in rash and negligent manner and das l ed to tractor from rear side, as a result the tractor turned turtle .nd the deceased sustained severr: injuries over all over the body. 'he deceased vt as shifted to hospit al lor treatment, however the dece : ;ed succumbed to injuries. The Poiice registered a case, vide Crime Nc , 1,1512016, against both the drivers i.e., Tractor and Lorry under Sectiorr 304 A, 337 of IPC Thereafter the Police after the entire investigation hz-r hled charge sheet against the driler of offending lorry bearing No.AI -23-Y-669 I undcr Section 304 A, 337, 338 of IPC and under Section read with 18 1 of M.V.Act and against the driver of the Tractor bear ng No.AP-396 AR- 49 13/Trailer bearing No.AP-36-AR 49 12 under Se r tions 3O4-A. 337, 338 of IPC and rtnder Section 143 read with 196 of I\4 V. Act.

4. The contention of the claimants before the Tritr nal was that as on the date of accident the deceased was aged abour. 45 1'ears and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month by labourer work at C due to untimelv death of the deceased, the petitioner have becom,: destitute and lost I ,i 3 ry44,g M4-944.&t ?29 @nd 47s of 2o2o their dependency for which claimarts claimed Rs. 16,00,O00/ , AS compensatron.

5. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent Nos. 1,2,4 & 5 q,ere remairred ex parte. Respondent No.3 filed counter-affidavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in rvhich the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the deceased and also denied the relationship of the petitioners and.the clarmanls and further contended that the petitioner Nos.2 & 3 are major sons and they are not dependents of the deceased and they are not entitled for arly compensation and further contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim pet it ion . 6 . Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues u,hich reads as under: i) Whether the accident had occuned on account of rash and negligent driuing of offending uehicLe i.e., Lorry beaing No.Ap-23-y 6691 and Tractor beaing No.AP 36 AR-4912, driuen by its diuer? ii) Whether the petitioners are ent[tled to compensation? If so, to uhat ertent and from tuhom? ) \ 4 !o4'J M / c.M.A-Nos.379 dn.l 475 9f2920 iii) To uthat retteJ? 7 . After perusing thc oral and documentary evidcr ces and goir-rg into the entrre record and the evidences placed by bct r the parties, the learned Tribunal a11ou,ed the claim in part and grarl-, d compensation ol Rs. 11,2O,OOO/- along rvith inte rest (Q 9o/o per annunl B. Being aggrieved by the compensation ar,r'ttr', ed the claimants prefer M.A.C.M.A.No.475 of 2O2O seeking enl ancement of the compensation and the rcsponclent No.3 Insuran e company prefer M.A.C.M.A.No.379 of 2O2O on the follou,ing among 1 re other grounds.

9. Learned counsel for the Insuralce Comparty r; ntended that First Information Report (FIR) u'as lodged by the wife of tl e deceased against the drivers of both vehicle i.e., driver of the lorry a:-l 1 tractor/ trailer on which the decerLsed was travelling. FIR and Charge, Sheet would reveal that both the <lrivers are found lault with the a,; .ident and learne d Tribunal ought to have hxed the liability even on the owner and insurer of the tractor/ trailer and the learned Tribunal oupl t to have observed that the drivers of the both the vehicles were not : rlding valid driving license as on tlte date of the accident. The police k rve charge sheeted I 5 l]TEJ MILC.M-A.Nos_379 aL.t 475 er 2929 under section 3 read with 18 1 of M.V.Act, 19gg, as the owner/insurer of the crime i'ehicle lorry r-randed over to the person is not hording valid Iicense as on the date of the accidenr. As such the Insurance Company is not at all liable to pay the compe,sation and arso quantifying of the compensation is higher and in spite of there being no document and sourcc of income ol the deceased.

10. Learned counsel for the Insurance company further contencled that in Nqtional Insurq.nce Compang Limited v. pranag Setht & otherst, thc Hon'ble Supreme court held that addition torvards future prospects shall arise only if the deceased has established income, but in the present case, the income of the deceased is neither established nor pro'ed and as such, the Tribunal ought not have added 2|uk of the future prospects. Learned counsel for the Insurarce Company further corltended the deceased was aged about 45 years at the time of accident and that there was no dispute with regard to the age of the petitioner and as per Scrlc Vernta and others a. Delhi Transport, Corporation and anothersz, the appropriate multiplier for the age group betu,een 41 ' zo0 Aa zToo z zoos no rzsQ \ 6 lq_vE,J M t ).4!L4.orj4dnd 47s oJ ?o29 J/ear to 45 year is '14', hon,ever the Tribunal has :' cneousll, took the: multiplier as '15' irrstead of '14', and fr-rrther contelr :d that the rate ol interest al 9"k p.zt. au,arded on the compensation ar ourlt is on higher side and ought llave granted 60/o p.a. on the comperr ation amount ancl prays this Cour to set aside the Tribunal order ar-i pass appropriatr: orders. 1 1. Per contra lcarned counsel for the claimant:; , ontended that the deceased was eamir.rg Rs.9,000/- per month as on tl 3 date of accidcnt And rlred on ttre .Iudgment oJ Smt.Chitra Chirl t ,a Vs.Iffco Tokgo General Insurance Compang Litnited3, u,herein in he abset-rce of anv documentary proof as to the income of the decasc therein who u,as coolie . has takc n the monthly income of the d: :eased therein at Rs.9,000/.

12. Learned c,)Llnsel lor the claimants lurther ntended that thc Tribunal having accepted the fact that the accide r , occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Lorrl' 1r aring No.AP-23-1,- 669 1 and Tractor l>earing No.AP 36 AR-49 12, but t - : learnecl Tribunal 3 2018 (1) AN.w.R.465 (Karn) I \ 7 379 t44.!. 2020 has erroneousiy taken the income of the deceased as Rs.7,OOO/ per month onlv, as such the learned rribunal ought to have taken the notional income ol the deceased @ Rs.9,OOO/_ per month and prayed this Courr lo enhancc the compensarion amounl and grant lair and just compensation under r.,arious head.

13. As per proceeding of Collector & District Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, vide Proc.No.bls12/2013, dated 30.06.20 16, rhe minimum wages for the Un-skilled worker (Mazdoor (sangh), Chowkidar, Attender (Peon), Sw,eeper (Full Time), Casual Labour is hxed Rs.250/ _ for Rural area per da5, for the financial year 2016-20lT. 'ierv 14 Hence, considering the ground rea-lities and facts of the case, this court 'is of the considered that the notional income of the deceased can be taken as Rs.27 5 / per day which even the unskilled or daily labourer can easily earned. Hence, the monthly income of the deceased can be notionally taken as Rs.8,250/- per month. Apart from that, as per the decision of Hon'ble supreme court in Nottiono,l Insttrance Compang Limited Vs. pranag Sethi q.nd. others+ and considering the q zofi ac.J zho ) - B rv!4r1 M..r. .M.A.Nos.379 d^412! 9t2029 .; age of the deceased as 45 years, n'hich is not dispul d by either of the parties, additioni:,I 25nk of the income has to be adc :d tou,ards future prospects to the inonthly income of the deceased- Thcr ,'fore, the monthll' income of the ,leceased rn'ou1d come to Rs. 10 3 Rs.2062.5/-). Tl're annual income of the deceasr: /- (Rs.B,2s0i- + would come to Rs.1,23,750/- (R.s 103 12.51- X 12) and, out of u'hic y ll3 has to be deducted towards the pcrsonal exper-rses of the deceased as the dependants are two in number. Then the actual ar I ua1 income lvould come to Rs.82,5t)0/- (Rs.1,23,750/ (-) Rs.41 ,25O1 ) \s per the column No.4 of schedule hxed in the juclgmen[ of the A.1', x Court in Sorrla Verma u. Delhi Trlansport Corporations, and cort idering the age of the deceased as 45 years, the appropriate multiplie I applicable for the age group 41 to 45 years is '14'. Thus, the total rss of dependency would come to Rs.1 1,55,000/- (82,5OO /- x 14\.

15. The appellants/claimants are further entitli .1 to Rs. 18,15O/ (Rs.15,000/- + lOoh + lOoh\ tor'r,ard s loss of esta,, and Rs.18,15O/- s 2oo9 ACI 1298 (sc) I \ 9 M.A,C, Ia4J 2020 (Rs.15,000/- + tOoA + lO.k) towards funeral expenses, as per pranay Sethi's Jud.gment (cited supra). 16 . Further, considering the appellant No. 1 being the husband of deceased, appellant No.1 is entitled to a sum of Rs.48,400/, under the head of '1oss of spousai consortium, as per pranag Sethi,s Judgment (cited supra). 17 . Appellant No.2 & 3 being daughter of the deceased, the appellant No 2 is entitled for compensation to a sum of Rs.4g,40o/ each towards 'loss of parental consortium,, as per Magma General Insurance Compang Limited. Vs.Nanu Rann alis Chuhru Rann6. i8. On overall re appreciation of the pleadings, material on record and the 1aw laid down by the Hon'bre supreme court in the aJoresaid cited decisions. I am of the opinion that the claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation as modihed and recalculated as above and given in the table for easy reference i ))1 6 zore 1ra; scc r:o 10 {14.1 tL G:4[.!4 Net]29 4ltdl1LeI 2929 -a;

19. Considering the above assessment made by tL i ; Court, appellants u,ould be entitled for the compensation as follows: i) ii) iii) I ,v) iAnnLral Incomt: (of the deceased) s.n,23Ol X12 = Rs.99,000/ 'lotal Annua-l Income = Annual Income + Futurc Prospccts (Annual Income X 2506) = Rs.99,0OO/ . Rs.24,75O1 : Rs. 1,23,750l Anr.rual Dependency : Total Annr.ial Income - 1/3 deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased : Rs.1,23,750/- (-) Rs.a1,25Ol = Rs.82,500/ Total Dependenc], : Annual Dependency x Applied Multiplier = Rs.82,5OO/- x L4 Claimant's enl.itlement towards conventional heads = Loss of Estate + loss of Spousal Consortium + loss of parental Corsortium = Rs.18,150/- r.Rs.18,150/ + Rs.48,400 + 968OO : Tot (s. 1 1,55,000/- Rs.1,8'1,500/- ts.13,16,5OO/-

20. The learned Tribunal has au,arded the rate of tterest i.e., at 9 oh per annum, whjch needs no i11terference. However. his Court is of the opinion that the claimants are entitled to interr:r; a!! 7.5 on the enhanced amount only. I I 11 u4,.r 44 c.4.A.&ti Z9 eu4lE o.t29zo

21. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A No.3Z9 of 2O2O filed by the Insurance company is partly a1lou.ed in so far as interest portion on enhanced amount is concerned ald other ground ratsed by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is rejected. The appeal filed by the claimants i.e., M.A.C.M.A. No.475 of 2O2O is allowed in part, enhancing the compensation from Rs. 11,20,000/- to Rs.13,g6,SOO/_ (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Thirty six Thousand and Five Hundred Rupees onlyl w'ith interest at the rate @T.s % p.a. on the enha*ced amount from the date of petition till the date of realization. The Insurance Company is 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 date of receipt of a iopy of this judgment. The compensation amount shall be apportioned among the claima nts in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the learned Tribunal. On such deposit, the ciatmants are permitted to withdrarv the same without furnishing any surety. There shall be no order as to costs. However, liberty is granted to Insurance Company to initiate proceeding for recovery of the compensation amount from the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 i.e., Owner and Driver of j 72 )f. .C.M.A.Nos.379 d^d 475 ry14,C oL2929 Offending Lorry Bearing No.AP-23 Y-669 1 There shr .1 be no order as to costs.

22. Miscellanr:ous petitions, if any are pending,. shz 1 stand closed. SD/.ASIEENIVASAREDDY ASSI. TANT REGISTRAR -2,+1_--- //TRUE COPY// :iECrloN oFFICER The Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claim\4rib_ ral-cum-l Additronal - District Judge, Karimnagar. _(with records,if any) 2. One CC to Sri A Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocat,e [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri cudi Madhusudhan Reddy, Advoiate toi t Cl 4. Two CD Copies \/ To, 1 4,.f,- ABK/psl HIGH COURT DATED: 2OlOGl2O25 COMMON JUDGMENT MACMA Nos: 379 and 475 OF 2020 r '4 o? trt s \tb \ t) q C LL ) ly'n i+ * i i PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA No. 379 of 2020 AND ALLOWING THE MACMA No.475 of 2020 Gfl1 1t" [ 34431 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MAeMAtos: 379 and 475 OF2020 MACMA No.379 of 2020 Between: The Cholamandalam M.S. General lnsurance Co. Ltd,, Represented by its Manager, Door No.2-3-184 and 185/A, 1st Floor, Satguru Arcade, Beside Venkat Reddy Eye Hospital, Kaman Road, Karimnagar City ...AppellanURespondent No.3 AND

5. Boini Eshwaramma, Wo Late Mallaiah, Age.42 years, Occ. Labourer Boini Niranjan, S/o Late Mallaiah, Age. 25 years, Occ. Labourer Boini Kranthi Kiran, S/o Late Mallaiah, Age. 22 years, Occ. Student AII are R/o H. No.5-35/f , Renikunta \frtfage, Thlmmapur Mandal, Karlmnagar ...Respondent Nos.1 to 3/Petitioners

4. Choppari Sadaiah, S/o Lingaiah, Age. 38 years, Occ. Driver of Offending Lorry bearing No. AP 23 Y 6691, R/o H.No.4-85, Chinnakalvala Village, , Sulthanabad Mandal, Peddapalli District (Previously Karimnagar District) 5. Eraveely Damodar Rao, S/o Gopal Rao, Age. 60 years, Occ. Business and Owner of Offendi.ng Lorry hearing No. AP 23Y 6691, R/o H Nq3-2:1. Rangapalli Village, Peddapalli Diskict (Previously Karimnagar District) ...Respondent Nos.4 & 5/ Respondent Nos.1 & 2 6 7 Gonela Shankar @ Shankaraiah, S/o Rajaiah, Age. 28 years, Occ. Driver of Offending Tractorbearing No. AP 36 AR 4913 and Trailer bearing No. AP 36 AR 4912; Fl/o H No.4-1 13/1 , Renikunta Village, Thimmapur Mandal, Karimnagar District Eluka R4q S/o Komuraiair- Age 35 years, Occ Business and Owner of Offending Tractor bearing No. AP 36 AR 4913 and Trailer bearing No. AP 36 AR 4912, Fi/o H.No.6-21, Renikunta Village, Thimmapur mandal, Karimnagar District ...Respondent Nos.6 & 7/ Respondent Nos.4 & 5 .4. MACMA No.475 of 2020 Between: Labour 1 Boini Eshwaramma and. 2 Others. Wo tate Mattaiah. e Ed 46 Years, Occ. 2 Boini Niranjan, S/o Late Mallaiah, aged 29 Years, Occ. La )our 3. Boini Kranthi Kiran, S/o Late Mallaiah, aged 26 Years, O: . Student All are R/o H.No.5-35/1 , Renikunta village Thimmapur randal, Karimnagar d istrict. ...A11 rellants/Petitioners AND 1 2 4 Choppari Sadaiah, S/o Lingaiah, aged 38 Years. Occ. Dri bearing No. AP-23-Y-6691, H.No.4-85, Chinnakalvala vil i mandal of Peddapalli District (previously Karimnagar Dis:r :r of offending lorry 7e of sulthanabad 1) Eraveety Damodar Rao, Slo Gopal Rao, aEed 64Years J owner of offending lorry bearing No. AP-23-Y-6691, R/o - Rangapalli village of Sulthanabad mandal Peddapalli dis r Karimnagar District). ;c. Business and No.3-2-1, 1(previously The Cholamandalam MS General lnsurance Company L r by ats Manager, Door No.2-3-184 and 185/A, 1st floor, Sir Beside Venkat Reddy Eye Hospital, Kaman Road, Karirrr Policy No. 3379101237625/000/00 valid frcm 25108120151 ited, Represented luru Arcade, ,rgar City Vide ,24108t2016. Gonela Shankar @ Shankaraiah, S/o Rajaiah, aged 32 )'i offending tractor bearing No. AP-36-AR-4913/Trailer bear 4912, Rlo H.No.4-113/1, Renikunta village of Thimmapu district. ars, Occ. Driver of rg No. AP-36-AR- randal Karimnagar

5.' Eluka Raju, S/o Komuraiah, aged 39 Years, Occ. Busines and owner of offending tractor bearing No. AP-36-AR-4913/ Trailer beir ng No. AP-36-AR- 4912, Rio H.No.6-21, Renikunta village of Thimmapurmir dal Karimnagar district ..Respon( ents/ Respondents These Appeals Under Section 173 of Motor Vehic l, s Act against the Judgment and Decree in M-V.O.P.No. 612 ol 2016 dated 03-() -2020 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Trrk,r 1al-cum-l Additional District Judge, Karmnagar. ORDER: These appeals coming on for hearing an(l grounds of appeals, the Judgment and Decree of the Tribr- r papers in the MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A I Advocate for the Appellants in MACMA No. 379 of 2020 and MACMA No. 475 of 2020 and of Sri Gudi Madhusudhan Re<h Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in MACMA No.379 of 2020 and Appel 475 of 2020. upon perusing the ll and the material amakrishna Reddy, lespondent No.3 in /, Advocate for the rnts in MACMA No. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows

1. That the MACMA No. 379 of 2020 filed by the lnsurance Company is partly allowed. Tribunal has awarded the rate of interest i.e., at 9% per annum. whrch reoulred no interJerence and the Claimants aie entiUed to interest at the rale of 7 .5o/o per annum on the enhanced amount only;

2. That the MACMA No. 475 of 2O2O is allowed in part, enhancing the compensation from Rs. 11,2A,00O1- to Rs. 13,36,5001 (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand and Five Hundred Rupees only) with interest at the rate @ 7.SYo p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petrtion till the date of realization,

3. That the Insurance Company is dlrected 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 date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment;

4. That the compensation amount shall be apportioned among the claimants in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the Tribunal;

5. That on such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any surety,

6. That the liberty is granted to lnsurance Company to initiate proceeding for recovery of the compensation amount from the Respondent Nos. I & 2 i.e., Owner and Driver of Offending Lorry Bearing No. AP-23-Y-6691; and

7. That there shall be no order as to costs in these appeals. SD/- A SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To, 1 2 The Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. Two CD Copies M, ABK/PSL HIGH COURT DATED: 2010612025 DECREE MACMA Nos: 379 and 475 OF 2020 I otL \ ,(4 J I uE't s \!t .i' \ _r.rt . r::lJ'' .+ .5 \t- \ Iil i- ;j ,.:i 'i PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA No. 379 of 2020 AND ALLOWING THE MACMA No. 475 ot 2O2O \b