The High Court · 2025

1. Unite,J lndia lnsurance Company Ltd., Rep.by its Manager, Branch Office situated at D.No.3-10/ 1, Theegalapahad Village, Srirampur, Mancherial Mandal, Adilabad district, Telangana. ...X-objectors/Respondents No.1 to 3 '2. JadatrHarish Kumar, S/o.Prakash, age 20 years, ;"ffi:::rd;::Ji:l:""' No.Al)-OUNG-7733, R/o.H. No.2-1 7, Bhimpur village, boor Mandal, Adilabad Distri:t,

3. Rathod Praveen Kumar, S/o.Jagannath, Age Major, Occ.Business and Owner of Car bearing No.AP-O1-AG-7733, R/o.H.No.2-61 2, Plot No.7, Subashnagar (lB), Utnoor, Adilabad District. ...R.espondents/Respondents Nos.4 & 5 . lr, ili: .;:,li ., .1;:,;.;- : Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl LAKKADI DAYAKER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent NoS.2 & 3 : SRI LAKKADI DAYAKER REDDY The Court delivered the following: Common Judgment .|:-.,,: \'', r ':,:ril;.lir.i: . .1,. ,,, ,, ,,,:]; ',,,,:.i.::r: :l',,':'ill .-. : -,3 H LE 1 E macma 325_2019 & x-oBJ_4-2021 NBK, J MAP MA No.326 20L9 And CROSS OBJECTT ONS No.4 of 2021 COMM OI\ JUDGMENT: The ,\ward dated 25.10.2018 passed by the Motor Accidcnt Clairns Tribunal-cum-Principat District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad, in o.P.No.86 of 2017, is under challenge in these petitions. By the irnpugned Award. the T'ribunal grmted a compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- with proportionate cosls and 9oh intr:rest per annum to the claimants on account of the death ol lvlr- -l'hc Danish Flussain in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13.01 .2016. Tribunal ['re:ld the respondent Nos.l to 3 (i.e., the driver of the Car bearing No.AP-01-AG-7733, the owq9,1,,,9f the,,Car, and the insurance company, respectivel.r) jointly and severatty liable to pay the cornpensation. '1.1 challenging the Award, the respondent No.3-[Jnited India lnsurance Oompany Limited filed MACMA No.326 of 2016.'the claitnants, on the other hand, are aggrieved by the Tribunal restricting the compensation to Rs.20,01),000, without enhancing it to Rs.25,00,000 by considering the facts and evidence, and therefore the Claimants filed Cross Objections No.4 of 2021 ser:king amendment of claim from Rs.20,00,000 to Rs.25,00,000. l.Z As the petitions are connected, they are being disposed of by this Common Judgment. For the sake of convenience of reference, the parties will be referred as Claimants, and ihsurancg company The facts of the.case, as per the claim petition in O.P.No.86 of 2017 ,

2. are that orL 13.01.2016, at about 10:15 P.ffi., the deceased, Danish Hussain, ;'i.::.:. .,.1'i,i ,,,;-gg$1,r, r . r,ri,-i, ' .r::!;i-r.i$tii:.1:, . ' ,.. r,:r..+:i;: .. .,.: ,, ., 2 macma_326_2019 & x-oBt_4_2021 N8K, J (: was proceeding as a pillion rider on a motorcycle from Pittalwada to RIMS , Hospital, Adilabad. When they reached in front of Thirumala Petrol Bunk, a car bearing No. AP-0 l-AG-7733, driven by Respondent No.1, came from the Collectorate Chowk side without observing the oncomin.q vehicular traffic and took a right turn towards the petrol bunk in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed. The car dashed into the motorcycle flrorn behind, due to which the deceased and the rider of the motorcycle full down. The deceased sustaindd a skull fracture and other bleeding injuries. Both the deceased and the motorcycle rider were immediately shifted to RIMS f{ospital, Adilabad. After receiving first aid, the deceased was ref-erred to Gandhi ['{ospital, Secunderabad for better treatment- However, while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to his injuries on 14.01.2016.

2.1 The Police, Adilabad II Town, registered a case in Crime No.20 20[6[i under Section 337 IPC against Respondent No.l .: i '-rl '' flor r'the,offences punishable under Sections 337,338, and 304-4 [PC read with Section l8l of the Motor Vehicles Act, as Respondent No. I was holding only an f-ight Motor Vehicle leamer's license, valid from 22.08.201 5 to 21.02.2016.

2.2 The deceased was hale and healthy at the time of the accident. He was 22 years old and earning Rs. 18,000 /- per month as a Sales Executive in RS Traders, Adilabad, contributing his entire income towards the welfare of the petitioners. Due to his sudden and untimely death, the petitioners not only lost their financial dependency but also suffered immense physical and mental agony. Sincethe accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent t, /.. driving of the car bearing No. AP-0!-AG-7733 by its driver, Respondent No.l, the Respondents 1 to 3, being the driver, owner, and insurer of the said car, arejointly and severally liable to pay compensation of R.s.20,00,000/- ,:.:rtirr, ii''fl 3 macma_326_2019 & x-oBJ_4_2021 NBK, J with interesl. at l8% per annum to the petitioners from the date of f,rling of the petition till rhe clate of payment.

3. Respondent No.2 (owner of the Car No.AP-O1-AG-7733) filed counte r affidavit. Rcspondent No.i (driver oF the Car) adopted thc counter of, respondent No.2. In the counter affidavit, respondent No.2 categorically denied the avennents made in the claim petition, including the rnanner of the accident, tht: alleged rashness and negligence attributed to him, as we[[ as the age, occupirtion, income of the deceased, and the dependency of the petitioners crn the deceasid's income. [t is contended that the accident did not occur due tc an1' negligence on the part of Respondent No.2. On thc contrary, the deceased and the rider of the motorcycle were themselves negligent, having lost control of the vehicle and fallen on their own. Thc i,chicle o[ Respondent No.2 did not dash or collide with the motorcycle as alleged. A ,,. false case has been foisted by the petitioners, falsety:;pplicatirlg,Respondent .';ri.: No.2 and his car for the purpose of claiming compensation.

3.1 tt is further submitted that although Respondent No.l was holding onl'r a leameCs license at the time of the accident, he was driving the vehicle in compliance of traffic rules. Without prejudice to the above contentions Respondent No.2 contended that his vehicle was duly insured with Respondent No.3 under a valid insurance policy (valid from 11.10.20t5 to 10.10.20t6), and the policlr was in force on the date of the accident. Therefore, the insurer has to indemniff Respondent No.2.

4. Resprndent manner in rvhich the aecident

1.', company filed counter, disputing the : i ., ,,.i] occuned, the allegation of rash and neg\gent dr:iving on the part of respond€nt no.l (the driver of the car), and even \re involvement of the deceased in the said accident. The insurance .:.ii t;l I I l i 1 j : I 4 macma_326-2O19 & x-oBt_4_2021 NBK, J company further denies the age, income. and occupation of the deceased as well as the dependency of the petitioners on his eamings. [t contends that the accident may have been caused due to the negligence of, the rider of the motorcycle on which the deceased was travellinq, and hence the or.r,ncr anci insurer of the said motorcycle are proper and necessary parties who have not been impleaded- It is contended that in the absence of valid driving licence at the time ofdriving the Car, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify. While admitting that the vehicle was insured under its policy, the insurance company submits that its liability is subject ro the termliand conditions of the policy, and any breach thereof would absolve it o{'any liability arising out of the accident.

5. on behalf of the claimants, pws.l to 3 were exarnined and documents ,On,,be,hgl! of the respondents, RWI was l-copy of insurance policy was marked. Ex.Al to A[3 wpr,e,.marked. '-':1;i:.t;:';, /r-:l .;i._+ : examined, and docUmrdnts Exg i" . 5-1 The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documenrary evidence available on record, passed the impugned Award, granting a compensation of Rs.20,00,000 with proportionate costs and intere statgyo per annum from the date of petition to the date of actual payment, holding a1 the respondents jointly and severalry riable to pay the compensation.

5.2 challenging the Award, the insurance company filed lw{cMA No.326 of 2016; and the claimants filed cross objections No.4 of 2021. 6' Heard IvIr-'A. R.amakrishna.Reddy, leained Standing Counsel for the insurance company; and IVIr. L. Dayakar Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants. Perused the record ,,, ;.:.: rtlf-*{'it'"Eiil':rf il;.iiqiil;1: :,.::'."', I :i,..... '.i'it 5 macma_326_2019 & x-oaJ_4_2021 NBK, J

7. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contends t:rat the Tribunal grossly erred in the quantification of cornpensation, having arrived at the awarded sum based on mere surmises and conjectures, rvithout proper legal or evidentiary foundation; that the clairnants h:rve ntiserabty faited to establish the age, occupation, and incoute of the decee.sed by producing any acceptable docurnentary evidence; that the Tribunal, having rightly disbetieved Ex.A8-the purported Salary Certificate---ought to have adopted only the notional income as per the settled law; that flrxing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- is highly excessive ard unjustified; that the Tribunal failed to take note of the fact that the decease,d was a bachelor, and as per binding precedents, 50%o of the -['ribuna[, income ought [o have been deducted torvards personal expenses; the however, et'roneously deducted only l/3rd, thereby intlating the cornpensation. [n addition, the'tribunal erred in awarding50Yo towards future prospects despite the fact that there was no- established or proved income of ' the deceased, which is contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court "in itlutionctl Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) ACJ 27O0; that the Tribunal has also exceeded the permissible lirnits under non-pecuniary heads, grariting Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of old age support to the mother and Rs.5,0()0/- towards transport, which are clearly impermissible under the guid-e-lines lafd down ip. Praryay $ethi ($-qpfd'-q{r4 hgg.g awaJ{ -gndel those head:; is tiable to be set aside. [t is further subrnitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the admitted fact that the deceased'was riding a motorcycle, along with two others, in clear violation of statutory rules, and -th-e- that the rider held only a leampris licgnse; which arnounts to a fundamental :rms and conditions of:the polr'ey, and at the very least, warranted a finding of 30o/o contributory negligence, which the Tribunal failed to record. The award of interest at 9/o per annum is also highly :, , :,: .;:'.i:;. 6 . macma_326_2019 & x_oBr_4_2021 N8K, J excessive in the current economic scenario, where nationalised banks offer only about 6Yo interest on fixed deposits, and thus requires downward revision; that awarding a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- against a claimed compensation of the same amount, without proper scrutiny, is wholly arbitrary, excessive, and unsustainable in law, and thus the impugned award is liabte to be set aside or suitably modified.

8. Learned counsel for the claimants, by referring to the grounds in the Cross Objections No.4 of 2021, essentially contends that the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased as only Rs.10,000 per month which r.-r,.n is less, and the Tribunal ought to have considered the Ex.A-8, Ex.A- [0, Ex.A- ll to Ex.A-13 and also the evidence of Pw-3 to assess the income at Rs.18,000 per month. It is contended that the Tribunal erred in restricting the compensation to Rs.20,00,000 (which is the claimed quanrum) and rhe .. ,Tribunal ought to have enhanced thd'ftqtrbbnsation to Rs.25,00,000, apart :,i_. i:t r: ,r: .j: . _",-.,, :.: .. . . .. frorn granting interestat l2Yo per annum.

9. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record, it may be noted that it is the specific recording by the Tribunal rhat the respondents could not elicit any contrary version from PW- I (the father of the deceased) in his cross-examination though PW-[ is not an eye witness to the accident. Further, the rider of the motorcycle Mr. Juned Bin Jafar @ Zavid, has deposed about the manner of oocurrence of accident, and he deposed that he along with the deceased was going on his rnotorcycle from Pittalawada to RIMS, Adilabad and when they leached in the front of Thirumala petrol Bunk, the offending Car driven by',rs5pondent No I in a rash and negligent manner, without observing traffic rules, turned towards Tirumala Petrol Bunk and dashed the motorcycle due to which the deceased and PW-2 fell down on the road and sustained injuries, wherein the deceased suffered fracture of skull '' r) 7 macma_326_2019 & x-oBJ_4_2021 NBK, J and other irf uries, and PW-2 suffered simple injuries. Further, in the cross- examinatiop of PW-2, nothing was elicited contradicting his deposition in chief examination. The Tribunal, by considering the evidence of PWs.l and 2, and also the Ex.Al-FtR, tix.A2-inquest panchanama, Ex.A3-postmortem report, Ex..\4-Motor Vehiclc [nspector Report, and Ex.A6-charge sheet, recorded a finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by resportdent No.l. Further, the reasoning recorded for not attributing r:ontributory negligence do not warrant interference in view of the ,,&nding that the respondents could,not prove by cogent rebuttal ersidence that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the rider of the motorcycle. Therefore, non-impleading of insurer of the motorcycle is not fatal to the claimants case.

9.1 With rcgard to the assessment of the income of the deceased, PW'-'3 (tht, person who issued Ex.A8-Salary-cuh-Service Certificate) deposed that ttre dcccased was Sales Executive in their Mobile Shop from January 2014 to the date o1'his demise on 14.01 .2016 and the salary paid in December 201 5 was Rs. 18,000/-. The Tribunal observed that Ex.A8 does not show which benefits are included in the salary, and moreover the Ex.A8 does not discloso the registration details of the company, and PW-3 has not filed any docun,ent showing the list of employees worked/working in the f,rrm. Further, P \I/-3 has not produced pay register in support of the claim of payment of salary of Rs.18,000 and the duration for which he paid such quantum of salary, except for issuing Ex.A8-salary certificate.

9.2 Apart from Ex.A8 and evidence of PW3; the Tribunal considered the documents Ex.A-'10 to show that ft deceasbd has computer knowtedge, and other certificates Exs.A-ll to Ex.A-13 to show that the debeased rvas active in extra-curricular activities like Scquts and Guides, .': i jl. 8 macma 326 2019 & x-oBt_4_2027 NBK, J Games and paintings etc., Considering all this profile, and also the nature of sales job performed by the deceased, the Tribunal made an assessment of income at Rs-10,000 per month. This Court is of the opinion rhat the assessment of income by the Tribunal is reasonable and realistic in the lacts and circumstances of the present case, and the same needs no interference. 9-3 With regard to the age of the deceased, the Tribunal considered the ssc cerrificare (Ex.A-9), the inquest panchanama (Ex.A_2) and .postmortem report (Ex.A-3) filed by the claimants to prove the deceased was 22 years old by the date of accident. The respondents did not dispute the said documents. 'l'trerefore, this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded with regard to the age oflthe deceased does not require any interference. g-4 With regard to the compliance of insurance policy, the driver of ; i,*i;isonlnded. by rhe' learned srariding counsel *u, ,i" ari".p,It*ff,;ti.;iata driving licence, there is no reliable evidence adduced in support of the contention- [t is the specific recording of the Tribunal that Ex.A5 proved that respondent No.l holds a valid driving licence, and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company vs. Swaran Singht , the insurance company is bound to indemnify the insured in case of a vatid driving licence, including a valid leamer's driving licence; and the burden is on the insurance company to.prove its pleading that the driver has no valid driving licence. The insuranc" .o*y is therefore tiable to indemniff the respondent Nos.l and 2 (driver and owner). 10. V/ith regard to the qrynfufn'of compensation, -1hs deceased was 22 years old, income of Rs.10,000 per month, and unmarried. He is survived by .., -i (2oo4l3 scc 2s7 \ / ,,4lt 9 macma_326_2019 & x-oBJ_4_2021 N8K, J parents and an unmarried sister. The Tribunal has not referred to the judgment of the Con:;titution Bench of the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi' Applying the ruling tn Pranay Sethi (supra), and Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation2 , and taking the assessed monthly income of the deceased at Rs.t0,000, [[re armual incoruc would be Rs.1,20,000 (Rs.10,000 ' l2)-

10.1 The deceased r.t,as 22 years old, and setf-employed or in an unorganized sector, so, 4}o/oacldition is allowed towards future prospects (as per Prana;t Sethi). Therefore, the total income including future prospects would be tls.1,68,000- Since the deceased was unmarried,Sooh deduction is appticable as l)er Pranay St:thi. So, the toss to the dependents would be Rs.84,000 (at 5O% of Rs.1,68,000)

10.2 For age 22, tlte applicable multiplier is 18 as per Sarla Verma. So, the totrll Loss of dependency : Rs.84r000 x 18 = Rs'15,12,000

10.3 Further, considering the law in Pranay Setht, Rs.15,O00 is awarded trtrvards Loss of estate Rs.15,000, and Rs.15,000 towards Funeral experises. The judgment in Pranay Sethi was rendered in zAfl, and the consortiunl component was awarded at Rs.40,000 per parent, with upward revision by t}Yo every three years. [t's close to 9 years now since the judgment in Pranay Sethi, and therefore it would'i be appropriate to proportiorLately enhance the consortium. The parental consortium would therefore be Rs.t,04,OO0 (@ Rs.52,000 each to the parents). Further, this Court is inclined to award Rs.25r000 to the unmarried sisterf towards loss of love and e.ffection on account of the death of the deceased-

11. Thr: impugned Award was passed in 20tr8, andthe ju{gfnent in PrarW Sethi (Wp*) has been rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Constitution il\ (2009) 6 sc(: 121 'z ,t / 10 macma_326_2019 & x-oBJ_4_2021 N8K, J Bench) in 201 7. It may be noted that Sarla Verma (supra) and, pranay Sethi (supra),laid down certain guidelines while considering various factors like age, income' personal deductions, etc., to bring uniformity and fairness whire adjudicatinq tlre claii,s and arvarding amounts under various Heads. 12' At this iutrcture, it is relevant to ref-er to the following observations of the I{on'ble Supreme court in state of Haryana vs. Jasbir Kauf ,wherein it was held as lbllows: tit.\.t "7' lt ha.s to be kept in view that the Tribunal caris.tituted unrler the Act os provided in Seclion 168 is required to make an awarcl determinirtg the ar:ounr of compensation which is to be in the real sense "dantoges,, which in turn appears to it to be ,rjust and reasonuhle". It ha.r to be borne in mini that compensattonfor ross o/ limbs or lit'b can harcily be weighetr in gorden scares. But at the same tirne, it hos to be borne in mind tiat the compentsorion is nor expectcd to be o windfatt for the victim. st:lutoly prrririor., crearry i1!,icae !a!.,lhe coupen-sstiotq.r.rup{,0e. ,ljust,,;,tnd it cannot be a Dononzu; not a sourgf of pro/it;. but the same: should nbt be a pittance. The b:iurts aid tribuioti noie , d"a"i; -ian the vurious factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which shourd be just- ll'hat x'ourcr be 'just" ,u*puirorioi is a vexed question. There ' can be no gorden rure appricabre tg ail cases for'meosuring the value of human tife or a timb. Measure o1 io*rg,* cannot be arrived at by precise mathematicar carcurotions. rt"ioutd depend upon the particularfocts and circumstances, and attending pecuriar -a;r;;;;;, or special features, tf any. Every methoi or mode assessing compensation has to be considered in the backgT,rri ,f .'iust" cornpensatio,nulhigh is the pivotar constderatton. ihough by we of the expresston "which opproit to tt to t" iirt,; o *'iaZ"axcretan x vested in the Tribunal, the determination has to be rationar, to be done by a judicious approach and not the outcom" iJrlri*s, wird guesses and arbitrariness. Tlze expression,jtxt,, dgnotis equitability, fairness and reasonabreness, "ia "o"-oriiroi.';; tu not so it cannot be just- (see Heren c. Reb;eilo r. u"n"*iiti" ;1rc'i"rtiiri) scc e0)". \ ,'&oo:) 7 SCC 484 ": I I I i1 macma_325_2019 & x-oBJ_4_202 1 NBK, J

13. Therr:fore, considering the facts of the present case, and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court inJasbir Kaur (supra), and Pranay Sethi (supra), the cornpensation awardcd under various Heads by the Tribunal is required :o be modilied and assesscd fairly.

14. In vier.v .rf, the tbregoing, and by applying thg law in Pranay Sethi (sttpra), an'L Sarla llerma (sLtpra), thc total compensation in the lacts and circumstanr:es of the present.case would be Rs. 16,711000 (i.e., Rs.15,12,000 + Rs.30,000 + Rs.1,04,000 + Rs.25,000). Further, the interest of 97o per annum awarded by the Tribunal is revised to'6o/o per annum uniformly from the date of lletition to tlie datc ol'actual payrnerrt. kecping in view the rationale in Sarla Verma (supra).

15. Accc,rdingly, the appeal {rled by thc insurarlce company (MACMA No.i26 of 110i9) is allowed by' revisirrg the cornpertsation to Rs.16,71,000 and also reVis:lng the interest to 6e/o per annurn uniformly from the date of peiition to the date of actual payment. The Cross Objections filed by the Claimants (Crosg Objr:ctions No.4 of 2021 ) is disrnissed. l-lie amounts already paid shall be taken irLto account while depositing the compensation by the insurance company. Iv[isce ions pending, if art v, $eJ! stand closed. SD/. M JAWAHAR REDDY SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The chairman, Motor Accidents claims Tribunal - cum - Principal District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad(With records, if any)

2. One CC to SRtn frnuerntsHi{A REDDy, Advocate [oPUCl 3. One CC to SRI LAKKADI DAYAKER REDDY, Advocate IoPUC] 4. Two 3D CoPies ADK/P:iL YA. ; '-...j j j ,. : :rji I :, isarfi;..ii1tj. .. , ,li t..i , L,4i*.rj, HIGH C,OLIRT DATED:A7l1UZA25 AlE rI.r g X tr.'r\fl 1[1t i,' CI .'') COMMON JUDGMENT MACMA.No.326 of 2019 AND CROS{} OBJECTIONS No.4 of 2A21 ALLOIq'ING THE MACMA AND DISMISSING THE CROSIS OBJECTI'ONS C"'€L &r* . , ,,:], [ 33oo I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA MACMA NO: 326 OF 2019 AND Gross OoiectioilnO: + OF zozt MACMA NO: 326 OF 2019 Between: United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd, Represented by Situated at Door No.3-1011, Theegalapahad Vi Mandal its' Manager, Branch Office, llage, Srirampur, [/lancherial ...AppellanURespondent No.3 AND

3. Mohamme d Zakeer Hussain, S/o Zahed Hussain, Age 44 years, Occ Mechanic lrfana Shaheen, Wo Mohammed Zakeer Hussain, Age 41 years, Occ Household Aamena Maheen, D/o Mohammed Zakeer Hussain, Age 14 years, Occ Student (Respondent No.3 is minor and is being Represented by her Father and Natural Guardian MohammedZakeer Hussain i.e. Respondent No.1 Herein) All are R/o H.No.4-1-24, Parkota Street, Adilabad Town and District

4. Jadhav Harish Kumar, S/o Prakash, No. AP 01 AG 7733, R/o H.No.2-17, Adilabad District ...Respondent Nos.l to 3/Petitioners Age 20 years, Occ Driver of Car bearing Bhimpur Village, Narnoor Mandal, 5 Rathod Praveen Kumar, S/o Jagannath, Age Major, Occ: Business and Owner of Car bearing No. AP 01 AG 7733, R/o H.No.2-6l2, Plot No.7, Subhash Nagar (lB), Utnoor, Adilabad District ...Respondent Nos.4 & S/Respondent Nos.1 & 2 Cross Obiection NO: 4 OF 2021 Between:

1. Mohanmed Zakeer Hussain, S/o.Zahed Hussain, aged 47 years, Occ.Mechanic, R/o.H.No.4-1-24, Parkota Street, Adilabad Town, Adilabad district.

2. lrfana Shaheen, Wo.Mohammed Zakeer Hussain, Age 44 years, Occ.Hc,usehold, Rio.H.No.4-1 -24, Parkota Street, Aditabad Town, Adilabad district.

3. Aamena ft/aheen, D/o.lMohammed Zakeer Hussain, Age 17 years, Occ.Strrdent, (Minor under the guardianship of her natural father i.e.apfellant No.1) ,All are R/o.H.No.4-1-24, Parkota Street, Adilabad Town, Adilabad district. ...X-objectors/Respondents No.1 to 3 AND 1 United lndia lnsurance Company Ltd., Rep.by its l/anager, Branch Office situated at D.No.3-10/ 1 , fheegalapahad Village, Srirampur, Mancherial Mandal, Adilabad $istrict, Telangana. ... RespondenUAppellant

2. Jadav llar:ish Kumar, S/o.Prakash, age 20 years, Occ.Driver of Car bearing No.AP-OUNG-7733, R/o.H.No.2-17, Bhimpur village, boor Mandal, Adilabad District

3. Rathod Praveen Kumar, S/o.Jagannath, Age Major, Occ.Business and Owner of Car lrearing No.AP-O1-AG-7733, R/o.H.No.2-61 2, Plot No.7, Subashnagar (lB), Utnoor Adilabad District. ...Respondents/Respondents Nos.4 & 5 Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 and Memorandum of Cross Objections filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC R/w section 173 [Vlotor Vehicles Act against the Judgment against the Order and decree in O.P.No.86 of 2017 dated.2,5-10-2018 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents CIaims Triburral - Cum - Principal Diskict and Sessions Judge, Adilabad. This aSrpeal and Cross Objections coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal and Cross Objections the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of SRI A RAMAKRISHhIA REDDY, Advocate for the Appellant in MACMA and for Respondent No.1 in Cros's-Objections and LAKKADI DAYAKER REDDY, Advocate for the Respondents in MACMA and Cross Objector in Cross Objections. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. Thatthe MACIIA No.326 of 2019 is allowed by revising the compensation to Rs. 16,71,000 and also revising the interest to 6% per annum uniformly from the date of petition to the date of actual payment;

2. That the Cross Objections filed by the Claimants (Cross Objections No.4 of 2021) is dismissed;

3. That the amounts already paid shall be taken into account while depositing the compensation by the insurance company. SD/. M JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// N OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - - Principal District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad

2. Two CD Copies ADK/PSL HIGH COURT DATED :1 711012025 DECREE: MACMA.No.326 of 2019 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS No.4 of 2A21 . ALLOWIING THE MACMA AND DISMISSING THE CROSS OBJECTIONS t-R "oe mt.t