The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellants: SRl. T VISWARUPA CHARY Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Mr. V. VENKATA RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1, 3, 4: None Appeared The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSIITG RAO IYANDIKONDA M.A.c.M.A.No.713 ot 20.20 JUD This M.A.C.M.A. is preferred by the appellants/ claimants being aggrieved by the Award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribuna_l _ cum _ XXVI Additional Ctrief Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to ,Tribunal) in M.V.O.p.No.19g4 of 2015, on 13.O2.2O2O, wherein, the learned Tribunal was pleased to partly allow the claim of the petitioners ald awarded an amount of Rs. 12,79,600/_ with proportronate future interest @Z.S% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit of the amount and further directed to apportion the amount parties as mentioned in the Award. amongst the

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants _ claimants, are the wife and children of the deceased. On_,. 15.O2.2O|S, while ttre deceased started frorn yeldurthi to NNR,J IVIACMA.No.T 13 of 2O2O 2 Masaipet on a motor bike bearing No'AP-23-N-2999 he met with an accident when the rider of motor bike bearing No.AP-29-AA -9074 dtove the vehicle in rash and negligently and hit the deceased Motor-bike due to which the deceased sustained injuries all over the body and died on the same day at about 8'0O P'M' A Crime was registered for the offence punishable under Section 3O4-A of IPC against the rider of the said motor bike'

3. At the time of the accident' the deceased was hale andhealthv,wasagedabout3oyearsandearning Rs.1O,OOU/ - per month by working as a Driver'

4. Respondent No'1 being the owner of the motor bike and respot-rdent No'2' who is the Insurer of the said motorbikewasmadejointlyandseverallyliabletopay the compensation Parents of the deceased were arrayed as respondent Nos 3 and 4 and they were set ex pa-rte' MACMA No TT3 "i|"ti 3

5. Respondent No,2 _ Insurance Company contested the petition by filing counter denying the averments made in the petition and age, occupation and income of the deceased and further contended that as on the date of accident rider of ttre said motor bike bearing No.Ap_29_ AA-9O74 has no driving license, as such, the owner and driver of the crime vehicle has violated the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19gg (for short, the Acr) and as such, the Insurance Company rs not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. 6 Basing on the pleadings, learned Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether ttre death of the deceased occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle i.e., motor bike bearing registration No.Ap_ 29-AA_9074? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation and whether the respondents are liable to pay the compensation, if so to what extent?

3. To what relief) NNR'J MACMA.No.713 of 2O2O 4

7. After going into the merits of the case alld after considering the entire evidence placed on record, to the conclusion that the said Ieaned Tribunal came due to the rash and negligent accident was occurred driving of the rider of crime vehicle i'e'' motor bike bearing registration No'AP-29-AA -gO74 and partly allowed the petition and awarded compensation of the petitioners along with Rs.12,79,600/- to proportionaLe interest @ 7 '5o/o per annum ' as below: AMOUNT Rs.12,9O,6 ool- sl. No. 1 HEADS Loss of earnlngs (Rs.6.00U/ P.m irtr(l Rs 72'000/- per yeq)^^. iil..;,;;ril'rou-s'ioo/ re' added 4o7o future ProsPcctsl iil ;:A iird,o:'u9i -':';,i/JT.:."j.;;'i towards Personal c\Pellses dependcnts) (lncomc P.'r \ clrr Rs.75.600 / Pcr \ car) [Multipher')6 its pcr age of deceased) Rs.75,600 x 16 = 12,O9'6OO/- rr Rs.6,3OO/ - P m

11. 111 lv. Funeral exP el-rse s Loss o[ cst ate Consorttum to the wife T TAL Rs.15 oo0 Rs.15 o00 Rs.40, ooo 0o67921SR NNR.J MACMA.No.7l3 ol 2Cl20 5

8. Being un-satisfied with ttte compensation awarded by the learned rribunal, the appenants / claimants have filed the present M.A.C.M.A. on tlee following grounds: That the learned Tribunal did not appreciate the evidence in respect of the income and monthly earnings of the deceased, whereas, the Salary Certihcate submitted in respect of the deceased under Ex.A_S shows that the income of deceased was Rs. IO,OOO/_ per month at the time of accident. That the learned Tribuna.l did not choose to appreciate and consider the judgments cited by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants _ rn Sarla Vertna u. Irethi Transport Corporationr qnd. Nqtional fnsurqnce Com4tang Limited a. pranag Sethp. Further that without appreciating and considering the latest judgments of the High Courts as well as Honble Apex Court and also without considering the said legal position while awarding compensation as sought. claimants | 2009 ACJ t298 tscr r 20 18 (to) sc.lSO NNR,J MACMA No.713 of 2O2O a 6 g. Though the petitioner has claimed Rs'23'16'0O0/- under various heads and he also further contended that parental / filia-I consortium was not granted to children and parents of the deceased as per Dlogma @nerdl Insttrance Co' Ltd' us Nanu Ram Aliqs Chuhnt Ranf and sought statutory beneirts as per Pranay Sethi's case citedsupraasRs.40,o0o/.wasonlygrantedtowifeof the deceased and also sought for interest @ l8o/o Per annum.

10. Heard Sri T' Vishwarupa Chary' learned counsel appearing for aPPellants - claimants and Sri V' Venkata Rami Reddy, Iearned counsel appearlng for resPondent No.2.

11. Considering the entire material placed on record and the contentions of both sid'es following points' which arouse for consideration under this appeal: 1) lfihether\he Tnbunal is ight in considenng the income of tne aec'J'ased as R"s' 1o'0o0i - P'M'? 3 (201t) l8 SCC I.l0 NNR,J MACMA.No.7 t3 of 2O2O 7 2) .Whether the petitiorrcrs / claimants are entitled for the enian -' '- -' "' c'l't'l tc€ compensatton as praaed for? If si, 3) To what ertent? POINT Nos. 1 and 2: 12. Perused the entire materia-l placed on record and the records submitted by the learned Tribunal.

13. The main contention of the appellants _ claimants in the present appeal is that the learned Tribunal was not considered the Salary Certificate, which was filed by the appellants in respect of the deceased under Ex.A.6. That on perusal of the original Salary Certificate/ Ex.A_6 shows that the deceased worked as Driver in Rohini Minera_ls private Limited, Madapur, Hyderabad and paid amount of Rs.9,379/_ per month. t4. The main grievance of the appellants - claimants is that as the deceased being a driver and the same ought to have been taken into consideration, they furttrer relied upon the judgments of the Hobble Apex Court in Smt.Kalauathi and others u. Mirzq. Kaisar Baig and NNR,J MACMA.No.T i3 of 2O2O a 8 anothel|citedabove,wherein,inasirnilarSetoffacts, where the deceased at the time of accident was serving as aDriverandwasholdingavaliddrivinglicenseand though in the said case, according to the claimants' the deceased was ea.rning Rs'15'OO0/- per month' but the Tribunal has awarded Rs'10'7O'000/- including the loss of dependency under different heads by considering the income of the deceased at Rs'7'5oO/- per month' which was granted by the Hon'lcle High Court of Karnataka' But, in the appeal filed' the Hon'ble Apex Court has enhancedthesaidcompensationbyconsideringthe income of deceased theretn at Rs.8,50O l- Per monttr' Being aggrieved by the judgrnent of the High Court the claimants preferred an appeal belore the Honble Apex Court, wherein at paragraph No 4 it is reads as follows: "4. Hauing heard leamed corrrtsel for the respectwe parties and in the facts and circLLmstances of the case and considelrrlg the mate/ial on record and consideing the fact thot the d.eceasetl utere ltauing driuing license o AtR 2022 sc 4609 NNR.J MACMA.No.7 t3 ot 2O2O 9 and u)ere uorking os d.riuers, the claimants shall be entitted to the loss of d.ependencg consi.dering the income of tFE deceased at least as Rs.1O,O0O,/per mon*L T\ereafter addirLg 4ook touard.s future prospects and rise in income and apprying the releuant multiplier the claimants sha be entitted to the enhaned_ amount of ampensation."

15. Though learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the deceased was working as a Driver and earning Rs. lO,O00/_ per month, rebutting the said contentions of the appellants _ claimants, learned counsel appea,ring for respondent No.2 has vehemently a-rgued contending that there is no basis for supporting evidence placed by the appellants _ claimants to show that the deceased was rn,orking as a Driver and even no driving license has been produced before the leamed Tribunal.

16. Learned counsei appearing for the appellants claimants rn support of their further contention has relied upon the judgments cited in Manusha Sreekumar N NR,J MACMA.No-713 of 2O2O l0 and others v' United Iadia Insurance Company Limiteds at paragraph No'20 and 21 reads as follows: (a)'emptose/'.,T":::^:;:;:"i!,i2Xi,'lnJ?,',"',"li\;:o;:. undenaking, the Person t tte ultimate @ntrol ouer t*i- affoLirt of lhe notor-.transport unfiertalang, and uhere'ii"Zlia afiairs a"t entntsted 'to ;:'il'';;;r";";;on ttttPtr'er caued a nlanaq('t' monaqtns riirector, managing ogtn'"; ii ong utn"' rtct'rtt' sttch other person ; (b) "motor transport undefiaking" meatts tI """',',.:':"'p?:^ 'iira"iix;"g in&uding a piuaticarrier ettgoqt'd tt canulng ;:#:;;;;;;;ioia"-o, t'"iiiu road for hire or reruard : . (zozz) ri\ec szr NNR.J MACMA.No.7l3 of 2OiO II (c) "motor .trqnsport worker, means a person wta is emploged in a mobr t ,y;:i;;;is;";;:';:n;ff ::i:"*:;::::fff ,f J,f,Il!,.,: e.ti.o.l::sional capacitg on o .tronrpoi ,.ni"i ir'io*ottend. to X\f:;r:;r*;::::;?,:;:2'*"i'"t,i"i)li,;,"tioains* uth.i"l-1 and includes a d-iuer, conductor, cleaner. "."" n''itil, ";:*, "J:,n,"h#t r"":;* boonng cte:;;;"' utatchman, or attend_ant ; (d) Tai, utages" means the ,7t: of uages pagable to ttte motor transport workers t;;,;:;x:s;$.:':ff ::ry":;!"^_:#nyr,or*n\,i!:" "r;:::

17. In the said case cited supra, the deceased was having a valid driving license issued by the Kerla Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board certifuing that the deceased therein was having Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) driving license.

18. But, in the present case, though the Sria.y Certificate was filed stating that the deceased was working as a Driver with the said company but the same was not proved except marking the same and mere proving the said marking of the documents while contents of the documents. NNIi'J MACMA No.713 o1 2O2O t2 19'LearnedcounselappealingforrespondentNo.2has vehemently argued t]lat in the absence of arly evidence claimants bY put-forth on behalf of the aPPellants producing ernployer to prove the said Salary Certihcate the same cannot be taken into consideration' Further thereisnolicensehasbeenplacedbeforethisCourtto show that the deceased was also knows driving and this Court can come to a conclusion that would have been in support the case of the appellants - claimants that the deceased was working as a Driver' 2(-. The afore-stated judgments cited by learned counsel appearing for the appellants - claimants wrth due respect wouldnotbeofmuchhelptotheappellants-claimat-tts' 2L. On perusal of the evidence of PW-l though shc has stated in her evidence that her husband u'as aged about 30 years and was working as Driver ancl rvas earning Rs.lo,Ooo/-permonthandstreisrelyinguponEx.A.6. testimony of PW-1 and Ex A-6' appcllants Except th;id NNR,J MACMA.No.713 of 2O2O r3 - claimants did not choose to placc any evidence in support of their case to prove that the deceased was earning Rs.r0,o0o/- per month by working as Driver in the aforesaid company not filed a,y Bank Statement of her husband. To prove the original Sa_lary Certificate appellants - claimants did not choose to examine the author of the said letter or the employer of the said company. Mere marking of the said certilicate through PW-l and oral testimony of pw-r alone cannot be taken into consideration to say that the said Salary / income of the deceased was proved.

22. In the absence of any oral and documentary evidence supporting the evidence of pW_ I and Ex.A_6. The learned Tribuna,l has rightly hcld that the appellants - claimants did not produce an,y eviclence to show that the deceased was working as a Driver in the said company. As there is no evidence to prove that the deceased was working as a Driver and earning Rs. I0,OOO/- per month. But, considering the ^g. Jil. NNR'J MICMA.No.713 of 202O 14 that he was 32 years and as he tras hale and learned Tribunal has deceased healthy at the time of accident' of the deceased as assessed the notional income Rs.6,0O0/- per month and basing on the same assessed the compensation under the head' of 'loss of earnings' In the absence of any proof to show that the deceased was worki,ng as a Driver and considering the fact that the learned.Tribunalhasnotionaltylrxedthemonthlyincome of the deceased at Rs.6,OO0 l- Pre' month' the sarne appears to be on very meagre side' 23. Considering the factual aspects and the ground realities and also the income of t]:e deceased can be taken into account' Considering the fact that when a Driver rrho engagedfora day a minimum wage of Rs.250/- per day will be given as d'ay Batta to any Driver' Taking into consideration of the sarne ' the income o[ the deceased can be taken as Rs'7'500/- per rnonth' NNR,J MACMA.No.7l3 of 2020 l5

24. It is also contended by learned counsel appeanng for the petitioner that as per the said judgment of Honble Apex Court in pranag Sethi,s case in respect of the "conventiona_l heads" Iearned Tribunal did not considered consortium for the children, though the children are also entitled for parental consortium as decided by the Honble Apex Court in pranag Sethi,s c.,,se and Magma's (cited supra) tJ.e children are also entitled for parentally consortium, whictr the Tribunal did not award the same to them, which they are entitled for the same. The relevant portion of said Magma,s case reads as follows: "8.7.A Constitution Bench of this Court in pranatl Sethi (supra) dealt u.tith tLte uarious heacls urtder u-.thich ompensation is to be atuarded in a dectth case. One of these fteads is l,oss of Con sorlutrn . In legal parlancc, ,'ansorttum,, is a comperrcTrous term parental consortium,, and. ,fitial which encompasses ,spousa I consorlium,. consortiurn. Ttte rigru to cottsortiu nt would include rhe companA, care, help, comforT, guid.ance, solace and affection of tLe decea_s ed, uthichjs a loss to his family. With respect to relatiotls with the a \NR.J MACMA.No'713 of 2O2O l6 deeased include sentol consortium is spouse, it uould generallg spouse.3 SPousol deftned as ights pertaining to tle relationsltip of o husbanduife which ollott'ts compensation to the suruiuing spouse pr loss of "ampany ' Society, cooperation, affection" and aid of ttte other in euery conjugal relation'" 4 Parental consortium is granted to tle child upon th.e premoture death of a parent' for loss of "parental aid, protection, affedion' societg ' discipline, guidance and training'" Filial consortium is the right of the parents to Precedent Analysis comrynso:tion in the case oJ an accid.entol death of a child' An accident leading to the death of amo causes great shnck rrnd agony to tlle parents ond 3 Rajesh and Ors' us. Raibir Singh and Ors (2O13) 9 SCC 54 4 BLACK'S LAw DICTIONARY (Sth ed' 1979) familg of the deceased' The greatest agong for a paretlt is to lose their child duing their lifetime' Chiklren are uolued for their loue' affection' companlol7slLip and their role in the fomilg unit' Consortiurrt is a speaal prism reflecting chrrttging nonns aboul the status and uorth of actnrtl relatiotsLtips' Modern juisdictiorts worlclouer hat'e recognized that the ualue of a child's consortium lor exceeds tle economic uahLe of the compensation outarded in tlte case of the rleath of a child-' Most iunsdictions NN R,J MACMA.No.7t3 of 2O2O t7 tlrcrefore perrnit parents to be oward.ed compensation under bss of onsortium on the death of a child. Tlte amount auarded to the parents is a compensation for loss o/ the loue, affection, care and. companionship of the deceased child. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneftcial legislation aimed. at prouid.ing retief to the uictims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In co.se where a parent has lost tLeir minor child., or unmarried son or daughter, tlte parents are entitled to be autarded. loss of ansortium und.er the head of Filial Consoftium. Parental Consortium is antnrd.ed. to child.ren who lose their parents in motor uehicle accidents under the Act. A few HiSh Courts haue autard ed. compensation on this @unt|. Hotaeuer, there LUas no claritg with S RajastLnn High Court in Jagmala Ram @ Jagmal Singh & Ors. u. Sohi Ram & ors 2017 (4) RLW $68 (Raj); Uttaraklund High Court in Smt. Rita Rana & Anr. u. Pra.d.eep Kumar & 6 Ors. respect to the pinciples on tahich compensation could be anaarded on loss of Fitiat Consoftium. The amount of omp ensation to be awarded as consortium will be go tnmed by the pinciptes of autarding compensation under Zoss of NNR,J MACMA.Na 7l3 ot 2O2O l8 Consortium' as laid doun in Pronog Sethi' In the present crrse, u)e deem it oppropiate to autard the fotler and tle sister of tle deceased' an amoun.t of Rs.40,000 each for loss of Filial Consortium."

25. Coming to the granting of compensation for parents who are citcd in the present case as respondent Nos'3 alrd4,itisnotindenialbyeitherofthepartiesthat respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the parents of the deceased' On perusal of the claim petition' it cleady shows that the parents were arrayed as respondents' on the ground that they are not cooperating u'ith the clar'mants ' It is also not the case of the parties that they have frled another petition claiming the compensation for the death of their son.

26. As thc respondent Nos'3 and 4 being the parents of the deceased, this Court is of the opinion that tJ.ey being Class-l lt:gal heirs, they are also entitled for the proportionate share o[ compensation on par with the other legal heirs as they also stand on the same footing NNR,.I MACMA.No.7 t3 of 2O20 t9 as that of the other legal heirs even though they did not join the appellants - claimarts in seeking the claim and did not participate in the proceedings for the reasons kno',rm to them.

27. This court ca,, set right which the learned rribunar could not do, as such, I hold that the parents of the deceased are also entifled for the compensation in the present case though there is no request on their beha-rf before the learned Tribunal and also appeal before this Court claiming compensation. 2A. Coming to the actual and just compensation, which the petitioners are entitled in view of the aforesaid discussion, appellants hrerein are entitled for compensation as follows: I ) Lo ss of earnings [fs^7f5^00 / p.m.. per annum it wou.ld be Rs.9O.OOO/ (Rs.7,5OO+3,OOO lO,5OO/- i.e., added 40% towards loss of income) (Rs. 10,500 2.62.5 7.87s/- 1l+tt deducted towards personal expenses so actual Income per -year @Rs.7,a7Sl- p-l::. Rs.94 ,500 er ear ,.€r Rs.15,l2,OOO/- NNR,J MACMA.No 713 of 2020 a^' 20 being 32 Years 16' as Per Sarla d eceased re ts u p tr 1i As the age pProp a Varm's case RS.94,5OOx 16 = 15,12'OOO/- Gil;ad compensation under the head of loss of earntn Funera-l expenses Sethi's case Prana Loss of estate u1 Prana 1V. Consortium to the Sethi's case

11. v Prana Sethi's case Consortium to the children (3) Consortium to t as per Magma's case he parents Sethl's casc TOTAL Rs.18,150/- Rs.18,150 Rs.48,40O Rs.1,45,200/- Rs.96,80O 381Rs 7 0oa I

29. Afterreassessmentofthecompensationconsidering the ground realities the gross were made bY this Court' The petitioners including the parents of the deceased are entitled for a total compensatlon of Rs.18,38,7OO1' irL awarded bY the Tribunal place of compensatlon AS Rs.12,79,600/-

30. In view ol the aforesaid discussion and the settled law cited supra, thrs Court is of the considered view that though the appetlants - clarrnants have claimed an arnount of Rs.23,16.OOOi - in the present appeal in view NNR,J MACMA.No.7l3 of 2O2O 2t of the reassessment made by this Court basing on the income of the deceased and considering the conventional heads, appellants - claimalts including the parents of the deceased are entitled for a total compensadon of Rs. 18,38,7OOl- in place of compensation as awa-rded by the Tribunal at Rs. 12,79,600 I - .

31. The respondents shall deposit the enhanced compensation within 2 months from this date along with already deposited amount with as awarded by learned Tribunal from the date of petition till the date of realization. On such deposit the compensation amount shall be apportioned arnong the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 and 4 (if the respondent Nos.3 and 4 have not claimed any compensation separately) as below: Petitioner No. I Rs.6,38,7OO/- Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 (each) Rs.3,0O,OOO/- Responde nt Nos.3 and 4 (each) : Rs. 1,50,000/- NNR,J MACMA.No.713 of 2O2O /'\ 22 With interest and costs in proportionate to the appellants and if respond.ent Nos.3 and 4 already claimed arry other amount the said amounts of respondent Nos'3 and 4 shall be equally apportioned to petitioners and the other conditions of the Award will follow.

32. Accordingly, this M.A.C.M.A. is allowed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stanllclosed ,rRuE coPY" sdr-P cHbElS+PHEe$Hii '/ secrr$Forrrcen .""'"'m[{ifiamii#J};}k'f,i'J'il"nachef r' ;*ilg[$i:"t "F- HIGH COURT DATED: 2410212025 JUDGMENT MACMA.N o.713 ot 2020 5lArE ( Y\ L) nr t r\lL lt?i * * :, '. ALLOWED G-?@ (k. -<;111 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 713 OF 2O2O Between:

1. Kajipuram Lavanya, S/o. late Ka.jipuram Swamy, aged about 33 years, occ: Household,

2. K. Srivalli, D/o. late Kajipuram Swamy, aged about 11 years, Occ: Student, 3. K. Sharanya, D/o. late Kajipuram Swamy, aged about 10 years, Occ: Student, 4. K. Laasya, D/o. late Kajipuram Swamy, aged about I years, Occ: Student, (Claimant No.2 to 4 are being minors, rep. by their natural mother cum guardian, the claimant No. t herein), All R/o.H.No.24, Masaipet Village, Yeldurthy Mandal, Medak District. ...CLAIMANTS/APPELLANTS AND

1. K. Venkat Swamy, S/o, K. Yadagiri, aged: Major, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.44- 9/1, Hanuman Nagar, Moulali, R.R. District.

2. The Oriental lnsurance Co. Ltd, Rep. by its Regional Manager, Snehalatha Buildings, near CM Camp Office, Green Lands, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

3. Kaiipuram Mallamma, W/o. K. Bikshapathi, aged . 52 years, Occ: Household, R/o.H No.24, Masaipet Village, Yeldurthy Mandal, Medak District.

4. Kajipuram Bikshapathi, S/o. Pentaiah, aged: 60 yeqrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H No.2-4, Masaipet Village, Yeldurthy Mandal, Medak District. RR 1, 3 & 4 Respondent remained Ex-Party in Lower Court ...RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor vehicles Act., against the Judgment and decree. made in O.P.NO. 1984 of 2015 dated.13. O2.2O2O on the file of the chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- XXVI Addilional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. and upon hearing the arguments of SRl. T.VISHWARUPA CHARY, Advocate for the appellants and of Mr. V. VENKATA RAMI REDDY, Counsel for the Respondent No.2 and None Appeared, Counsel for the Respondent No.1, 3, 4. This Court Doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed by enhancing the Compensation amount from Rs.12,79,6001 to Rs. 18,38,700/-

2. That the respondents shall deposit the enhanced compensalion within 2 months from this date along with already deposited amount with as awarded by leamed Tribunal from the date of petition till the date of realization;

3. That on such deposit the compensation amount shall be apportioned among the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 & 4 (lf the respondent No.3 & 4 have not claimed any compensation separately as below: o Petitioner M.1 : Rs.6,38,7001 o Petitioner Nos 2 to 4 (each) . Rs.3,00,0001 . Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (each): Rs.1,50,0001 with interest and costs in proportionate to the appeltants and if respondent Nos.3 and 4 already claimed any other amount the said amount of respondent Nos.3 and 4 shall be equally apportioned to petitioners,

4. That the other conditions of the award will follow 5. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower court shall stands confirmed in all other respecls; and

6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. P.CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hvderabad. Two CD Copies 2 w HIGH COURT DATED: 2410212025 DECREE MACMA.No.713 of 2020 ALLOWED k.uPqnA fto-'