The High Court · 2025

2. For the sake <;f convenience' the parties hereinafter are referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal'

3.ThebrieffactsoftheCaSeaScanbeseenfromtherecord arethatthepetitionershavefitedclaimpetitionclaiming compensation of Rs.2O,O0,OOO/- (Rupees twenty lakhs on$ fromtherespondentNos.l,2and'3forthedeathofone"shaik Matrmud pasha, (hereinafter ,deceased' for brevity)- Petitioner No.1 is the wife of the deceased, petitioner Nos'2 and 3 are the daughtersofthedeceaseclandpetitionerNo.4isthemotherof the deceased. The reason assigned by the petitioners for the death of the deceased is that on 05.09.2013, the deceased left his house on his motorcvclc to insiall flexi o[ Jagadamba cloth \ \ ) '+,*q-.,--irlinlii::i::nryfl.iid6@f,sa mffii€ 2 GMMJ MACMA.No. t98 of 2020 Sh'w-room. After compretion of work, while he was proceeding to Karimnagar on the motorrycle and when he reached near Alugunur bridge at about 6:00 p.M., a lorr5r bearing No.MH_06_ HC-o663 driven by its driver i.e., respondent No. r in a rash and negJigent ma.nner and with higtr speed dashed the motor cycre of the deceased from opposite direction. Due to the same, the deceased fell down on the road and sustained severe grievous injtrries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. 4. Based on a complaint, police_L.M.D Colony p.S., registered First Information Report No. LZg/2or3 under Section 304-A of I.p.c. against the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., rorry bearing No-MH-o6-I{c-o668 and after investigation filed charge Sheet. 5' According to the petitioners, the deceased was aged about 3o 5'ears at the time of aecident and was engaged in the work of installing flexies (digitar advertisement printed on vinyr sheers) and stage decorations and used to earn Rs.15,o0o /- per month. It w':rs stated that the petitioners were dependant o' the income of the deceased and due to his sudden demise in the said acci'lent', the family suffered a lot and rost a young earning family member, his rove and affection, and were left in misery. The.efore, the petitioners as dependants of the dcceased, filed I 3 GMMJ MACMA.No. 198 of 2ofo claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.2O,OO, OOOI_ (Rupees twenty lakhs only) against alr the respondents jointry and severally. 6' The respondent Nos.l and 2 fired counter denying the allegations of the petitioners and materia,y contended that respondent No.2 got insured the crime vehicle by respondent No'3 and the poricy was subsisting at the time of accident. Respondent No. r was hording varid driving license to drive the vehicle at t]:e time of accident. Hence, the petition may be dismissed with costs. deceased, 7 ' The respondent No.3-Insurance company fired counter denying the manner of accident, age, avocation , earnlng capacigr, relationship of petitioners with the negligence, invorvement of crime vehicre in the accident, rash and negligent driving of crime vehicre and called for strict proof of the sarne. It was contended that the recklessness and negligence of driver of the said rorry alone caused the colrision between the crime vehicle and the motorcycle of the deceased. Further, the police complaint was filed after a lapse of one day and seriously disputed the issuance of any insurance policy by the respondent company in favour of owner of the crime vehicre, as it is not traceable in the office. It r,vas further contended that CNP tt\ 1 tijlr,r:.;:iPryjh* .. .1 -- 4 CMMJ MACMA.No.198 of2020 theoccurrenceofaccidentwasnotrepor.tedbytheinsuredor driverofcrimevehicleont}redateofaccident.Therefore, respondent No.3 shall be permitted to take all necessary defencesaScontemplatedunderSectionstTo-B,l47and149of MotorVehiclesAct,lg8S.Itwascontendedthatcompensation claimt:d is excessive, exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim petition Based on the rivar contentions, the Tribunal has framed 8 the f<rllowing three issues:- -i"a Whetler tle arcident ha'd oeuted due to the tte offendinp^ n"gwnt driuing --of- ,'r"i uehicle i.e., bA; bearilry- tto'tWU-O6-HC-O66i diuenbY its driuq? Whethe.r the petitioners are entitled fo' L:"^i""""tion? Ii;;, b uhat amount' and from ulom? To uhat relieJ? ii) iit ) g. During the course of trial' on behalf of the petitioners' the pctitioner No. 1 got examined herself as P'W- 1 apart from exrLmining P.W-2 and P'W-3 and got marked Exs'A-1 to A-7' On none were examined and no be'ralf of the resPondents' documents were marked' t(). The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary er idence on record, partly allowed the claim petition in favour of 5 GMMJ M,ICMA.No.l98 of2O2O the petitioners/claimants by awarding a total compensation of Rs.17,83,6001- (Rupees seventeen lakhs eighty three thousand six hundred onl5r) with interest at 7.5o/o per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit, holding respondent Nos.l to 3 are jointly liable to pay compensation amount. Aggrieved by the reduced quantum of compensation, the petitioners have filed the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

11. Heard Sri S Mohd. Abdul Kareem Khan, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri V.Venkatarami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

12. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that though the appellants proved their case by adducing cogent evidence, apart from relying on the documents under Exs.A-l to A-7, the Tribunal without considering the same has erroneously awarded meager amount. [t was further contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the deceased as Rs.15,0OO/- per month as per Ex.A-7 i.e., salary certificate and ought to have awarded just and reasonable compensation. Learned counsel for appellants contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered appellant \ \ \ \ 5 GMMJ MACMA.No.I98 of 2(D0 Nos.2 and 3, i.e., minor daughters,.to be included for the purl)ose of consortium under the head of '?arental consortium". The learned counsel in order to support his contention relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Suprerne court in the case of Maglma @nero,l Insurance Compang Lttntted, a. Nanu Ram and. othersr, wherein the Honble supreme court dealt with tonsortium' to be paid in case of death. on the above grounds pralred to allow the Appeal and grant just and reasonable corrLpensation. 13- Per contra. learned standing counsel for the Insurance corrpany has contended that the Tribunal has righfly assessed the income of the deceased and awarded just and reasonable conlpensation. Therefore, on the above ground, interference of this; court in the well reasoned order passed by the Tribunal is unrvarranted.

14. Now the point for consideration is: "Whether the impugned order and decree passed bg the Tibunal calls for ang interferen@ bg this Court? If so, uthether the appellants/petitioners are entitled for any enhartcement of compensation and in uhat quantum?', ) I ' 2ot8 .t(-.r lr8l 7 GMMJ MACMA.No.l98 of2O2O

15. It is pertinent to note that respondent No.2 has not preferred any Appeal charlengrng the impugned order dated o9-o7-2019. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the appellants and the deceascd. There is also no dispute with regard to the manner in which the accident occurred. The Tribunal by relying on the oral evidence of p.w_ 1 (wife of the deceased) apart from the evidence of p.w-3 coupled with the documentarSr evidence under Ex.A-l (FIR), Ex.A-2 (charge Sheet) and Ex.A-3 (MVI Report) has arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred only due to the negligent act of the driver of the crime vehicle, who drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner resulting in the collision of the lorry with the motorcycle of the deceased and answered the same in favour of the appellants.

16. The {irst and foremost contention of the learned counsel lor the appellants is that the deceased. was earning Rs. r5,0oo/- per month by engaging in the work of installing flexies (digital advertisement printed on vinyl sheets) and stage decorations. To prove the same, the appellants produced Ex.A-T (i.e., sarary certificate issued by Nitya Advertisement Agency, Karimnagar), but the Tribunal has erroneousry discarded the evidence and fixed the salary of the deceased at a paltry sum of Rs.g,o0o/- \ 1 \ 8 MAcMA.l{o.198 of 2O2O GMM,J t per rronth and awarded very meager amount towards comp,3nsation. t7. It is an admitted fact that the appellants have produced Ex.A-7 salary certificate, which was issued by P'W-2' however P.W-:2 faited to submit any evidence, such as, sala4r register of said advertisement agencJ ls an entity without any valid license; unregistered considering the same the Tribunal discarded Ex.A-7 and fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.8,OOO I ' per month' employees. . business Further

18. The cornerstone of the Motor Vehicles Act is the principle of J.-rst compensation'. This means the compensation should be fair. reasonable and equitable. The Hon'lcle supreme court and various High Courts have repeatedly held that Courts must take a liberal and pragmatic approach, especially for victims from infcrrmal economy/unorganized sector and cannot adopt a rigid/pedantic vie,,v that penalizes a person for the nature of the:ir employment. Consictering the factual matrix of the present carie and also taking note of the fact that the year of accident being 2013, this Court is inclined to consider monthly income of th= deceased as Rs.8,OOO/-, which in the view of this court is just and reasonable, rvhich sum is marginally more tl.an person errgaged in manual labour or as coolie would earn Rs.25O/- per I GMMJ MACMA.No.t98 of2O2O I day. The sum of Rs.g,O0O/_ per month is considered reasonable on account of nature of work of the deceased. Lg' The other contention of the rearned counser for the appellants is that 'parental consortium, ought to have been granted to appellant Nos.2 and 3, who are minor children of the deceased. In Harpreet Kaur and, others v. Mohrnder yadqa and' others2, the Hon'ble supreme court in para Nos.12 and 13 has held as under: "12. The judgment in Rajesh u. Rajbir ((2OI3) g rcC S4), utas followed in other decisions. Howeuer, *e approach in *n,se decisrons, was disapproued. bg a fiueiuage iench decisian in National Insurance Co. u. pranag *tni pOtZ) 16 SCC 6g0), where this court indicated. u.ttut sltoutd. be the anect approach in aw ar ding amo unt s tott ard.s crn:r;ortiuttu "52' ["'l rherefore, we think it seemrg ta ftx rcasonabre sum,s. It seerTrs to us that reasonable figtres on qnventionnl head.s, namelg, /oss o.if estate, loss oJf mnsortium and, funeral experlses shoutd be Rs. LS,O\O/_, Rs. 4O,O0O/- and Rs. LS,OOO/_ respecttuely. The principle of reui.siti^g the said. head.s is an acceptabre principre. But *rc reuisit srwutd. not be fact_entrb or quartunt-certric- we think that it utourd. be ondign that the antouttt tltqt LUe haue qtantified. sttoutd. be eihanced. on perceriage basis in euery three gears and. the enltanem.ent should be at the rate of IOol in a span of three gears...,, ApptgW this principle, in Magma Generai Insrtrane C.. ;. Nanu Ram ((20I 8) 18 SCC t 3O), this court tetd a.s follows: "2O. TLIACT as well as tlrc High Court haue trrlt award.ed. ang compensation with respect fo loss of ansortium and. toss o/ estate, wltich are t?e other mrurcntional l^ad.s und,er uthich compertsation is awq-rded in t?rc euent of dqth, a,s reagnised. bg the constitution Bench in pranag sethi. Trrc Motor vehicresAcf rs a beneficictr uncr werfare tegistarion. Thecourt is dtttg-bound and entitlecl to atuarcl ,,just compertsation,, inespectiue o|itutto, ong plea in that behalf was raised. by tle claimant. In exerci* of our 2 AIR 2o2i sc il t lB@F-iif#tlirr9ji:;1i. ... .:": - :--- .'.,'- . ... 10 GMMT.l MACMA.No.l98 of 2020 o .pouer under Article 142, and. in tlrc interests of iustice' ue deem it appropriate to auard ant amaunt of Rs 75'OOO toutards loss o/ estate to ResPondents 1 and 2'

21. A Constitrttion Berrch of this Court in Pranag Sethi [Nationol Insurance co. Ltd. v. Pranay sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680: (2018) 3 SCC 5 (2017) 16 sCC 680 6 (2018) 18 SCC 13o 7 (Ciu) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 2OSl dealt with the uarious leads under uhich ompensation is to be aworded in a death case' One of tllese neias is loss of mnsortium' In legal parlance' 'consortium" is a ampendious term uhich encompasses "spousal consortittm"' nparental ansortium", and "fitial consortium"' The riSht to insortium would includ.e the company' care' hefu' amfotl gui.dane, solace and affection of the deceased' uthich is a loss to his famitg. With respect to a spouse, it would include sennl relntions utith the deceased" spouse : [Rajesh v. Raibir sin's,\ (201s) e scc s4l.

27.7: Spousal consortiunt is generally d'efined as rights pertainhg to the relationship of a husband'wrfe which allows ompen'satbn io the suruiving ipou.e 1o, loss o/ "company' societg' cooperatiory of,fdion, ond aid of the other in euery conjugal relation"' [Black's Law Dictionary 6in ean-, 1g7g)'l 2t'2' Parental ansortium is granted. to tle child. upon tlrc premature death of a parenl' pr loss if "parentat aid., protection, affectiort, societg, discipline' guidane andtrainimg"'

21.3. Fitial consortium is the riglrt of the parents to compen'sation in the case of an accidental cleattt of a child' An arciderrt leading to the death of a child cat{ses great shock and agong to the parents and family of tlrc cleceasecl' The greatest agong for a -parent ts to lose their chilcl clurhtg tlrcir lifetime' Children are ualued for tlwir loue, cLJfectiort' conrpcrnions hip and tlrcir role in the familg unit. 22. Cortsortium is a spectal prisrrt reJlectirtg changing rwrrn's about thestatusandworthofacttnlrelatiortships.Modernjurisdidbtt.s utorldouerhauerecogrused'thattl:tevalueofachild'sconsortiurrt far exceeds the economic ttalue of the compensation awarded itr- th.ecoseoftlrcdeathofachitcl.futostjrisdictionsthereforepermit parents to be awardecl con4tensatiort und'er loss o/ con'sorTium ort ttrc d.eath of a chitd' Tlrc antount awarcled to the parents is a ampensation fo, Ioss of the love' aJfectiory care and' companionship of the deceased child' 23. The Motor Vehicles Acf is a beneficial legislation aimed at prouidingrelieftothedctimsortheirfanrilies'incasesofgenuine (l GMMJ MACtr,lA.No.tgE of 2Oi 71 ctaims. In case where a parent hr.is lost tleir mirar child, or unrnrried son or daughter, ttrc parents are entttled. ta be awarded ross o/ consortium under the hed of fitiat onsortium. Parental consortium is auarded to ch*dren *ru L". rr*i, i"tr"u in motor uehicre accidents under tte Act. A feut High courts haue awarded ompensation on this count. Ho:ueuer,- tfur; ;;; craritg wtth respect to the principres on which iiw"*u*n aurd, be auarded on /oss of fitial consortiam 24. The amount of compensation to be autarded. as onsortium will be gouemed. by the principtes oy awaraing @mpensation under'Lass of consortium' as raid. dawn in eranal *thi (atpra)., 20' considering the principles of raw raid down by the Honbre supreme court in the above case with respect to award of "ansortium"; 'consortium' can be awarded under the head of "Spousal Consortium", "parental Consortium, & "Filial consortium". persons not coming under any of above category are not entitred to receive consortium. Minor children quaris for consortium in the category of "parental consortium,, in case of death of their parenr(s). The Tribunal has awarded a surn of Rs'40,ooo /- to appeilant No.l (i.e., wife of the deceased) under the head of 'spousal consortium', and has not awarded any sum under the head of 'parental consortium,, which appears to be insufficient in the considered opinion of this court and deserves interference. In this regard reliance can be placed on the decision of Hon,ble Supreme Court in llnited, India \ ATEreTE ) i i. s H t2 MACMA.No. GMMJ l9a o( 2O2O husura ne @tnpang Llmtt'ed o' Sattnder Kaur @ Safxoinder Kanr antd otl:rlt* wherein at Para 22' it was held that: n - - -soortsol a nsorthtm at the rate of Rs'40'00-0/ - and ;;;:"r; tt";'i-pii"t"t onsortium io each child at the ;;;.t R".;-odo6t-. no ompensatio-n under these teads at" in at to be increased by look after euery three Aears' i*ril,rgtg, the grant o7 '*t"iirttii'* :o^Y?'d".loss ln"r"*id to Rs'44'ooo/- to each Appellanf..: Hence, appellant Nos'2 and 3 in the present case are -ns'+o,oOot-. entitledtoreceive.parentalconsortium,.onapplicationofthe principles ihdicated it Magna Gir.lneral Insurance Corrynng rt' Itcrnu Rorttf and Sortulnder Kcur's case (supra 3)' this Court is of the opinion that the parental consortium has to be granted to each of tJle children, hence appeltant Nos'I' 2 and 3 are entitfed to Rs.44,oOo/- each. Thus, the total amount payable towards spousal and parental consortium is Rs' 1'32'OO0/-' 2L. Now reverting to the issue of computation of corrpensation, in the present case' the cleceased q'as aged about 3O years at tJle time of accident' as evident from Ex'A-l FIR' Ex.A-2 Charge Sheet and Ex A-'5 Post-Mortem Examination Report. The Tribunal as per the decision of thc Hon'ble Supreme Cc,urt in Sotratla Vetma a' Delhi TransPort Corporotloai ' h.as ' (2021) l I scc 780 ' (2018)t8 scc l3o ' (r.oo9) 6 scc l2l {' GMMJ MACMA.No.196 0f2020 13 rishtty taken the appropriate multiplier as nLZ", considering the age of the deceased.

22. The Tribunal has rightly considered the aspect of future prospects while calculating the compensation, taking into consideration the age of the deceased i.e., 3o years old at tlre time of accident (i.e., below 40 years) and the deceased being self emplqyed, and held that he is entitled for future prospects @ 4oo/o as per the decision laid down in Natlonq.l rnsurance Compang Limited. a. Pranag Sethff, which appears to be just and reasonable. Thus, the monthly income of the d.eceased with future prospects comes to Rs.l l,g0O/- per month (Rs.g,SOO/- + Rs.3,4oo/-). since the deceased was having four dependants L /+tt' 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.8,925/-; annual income of the deceased based on the above computation comes to Rs. 1,07, Ioo/- (Rs.8,9251- x 12 rnonths). As stated supra, the relevant multiptier for the age of tlre deceased is '17'. when the annual income of the deceased after deducting his personal expenses is multiplied with the relevant multiplier, it comes to Rs.l8,2O,7OO/- (Rs.L,OT,1OO/- x LTl. 6 (zon) 16 scc 680 I \ t4 T\ MACMA.No.lggof2O2o !i GMMJ .' Thus, the loss of dependency on account of sudden demise of deceersed is quantifred at Rs. 18,20,7OO1-.

23. F\rrther, the Tribunal awarded Rs.15,OOO/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,O00/- towards loss of estate. However, as per the principle laid down in Pranag Setht's case (supr:a 6), the appetlants are entitled to a consolidated sum of Rs.77,O0O/- under the conventional heads (Rs.7O,O0Ol- + l}o/o enhemcement thereon). F\rrther, this Court is inclined to award a sum of Rs.44,O00/- each to appellant Nos. l, 2 and 3 under the head of 'spousal Consortium' and 'Parental consortium'. Thus, the appellants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.!)O,29,7OO1- (Rs.18,2O,7OOl- + Rs.77,0Oo/ + 1,32,000/- (i.e., Rs.zt4,OOO t- to appellant No.1 towards 'spousal consortium'and Rs..[4,O00/- each to appellant Nos.2 and 3 towards 'parental consortium')

24. It is noted that out of the initially au,'arded compensatlon of Rs.17,83,600/-, the Tribunal awarded Rs.5,83,6OO/- to aplrellant No.1, who is wife of the deceased and Rs.5,OO,0OO/- to appellant Nos.2 and 3, who are minor daughters of the de<:eased and Rs.2,OO,OOO/- to appellant No-4, '*'ho is the mc,ther of the deceased. The Tribunal further clirected that out : .--:4-,'iif --,.!!i:tuI'4--,-- r\ 15 . GMMJ MACMA.No.l98 of2020 of their respective shares appellant No.l was permitted to withdraw Rs.3,83,6OO/- out of her share of compensation and appetlant No.4 was permitted to withdraw her entire share of compensation and the compensation amount of Rs.5,OO,OOO/- each awarded to the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 shall be kept in fixed deposit till they attain majority and the remaining compensation amount to appellant No.l along with accryed interest and proportionate costs shall be kept in fixed deposit for one year.

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

26. In the result, the Appeal is allorved enhancing the compensation amount from Rs. 17,83,600 l- to Rs.2O,29,7OO | -, which shall carry interest @ 9o/o per annum from the date of filing the claim application till the date of realization. The respondents are directed to deposit the said enhanced I t compensation alnount after duly deducting the amount already deposited/withdrawn, if any within a period of two months from t I the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, \ \ L6 MACMA.No.198 of 2O2O GMMJ' the zrppellant No.l i.e., wife of the deceased is.awarded an amormt'of Rs.6,29,7OO/- and the appellant Nos.2 and 3 i.e., minor daughters of the deceased are awarded an amount of Rs.6,00,O00/- each, which shall be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized Banks till they attain majority and appellant No.4 i.e., mother of the deceased is awarded an amount of Rs.2,00,0OOl-. The appellant Nos.l and 4 are entitled to with,iraw the entire share of compensation amount awarded to thenr without furnishing any securiqr, subject to payment of defic,it court fee on the enhanced compensation, for the sum awa::ded beyond the amount claimed by the appellants. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if &Dy, pending shall stand closed 'fo, Sd/- M. JAWAHAR REDDY -ASSTSTANT REGISTRAR ./ @ SECTION OFFICER ,,TRUE COPY'/ I l I ! I I t I Di:;trict Judge, At Karimnagal: (With records) r. The chairman Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum- ltl Additional 2. one cc to sri. S rrlono Abdltl Kareem Khan Advocate IOPUC] ;. o;" CC to Sri V. Venkatarami Reddy Advocate [oPUCl AS/DL ,lfl 4. Tu,o CD CoPies HIGH COURT DATED:0'7l11tzD?;s JUDGMENT MACMA.No.198 ot 2020 t - .r-. :> 0 5 llrfl uoz6 *"t i.) l. - :..' ALLOWNG THE MACMA b t, \ \ [ 3484 I IN THE;HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA FRIDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN MOTOR AQCIPENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 198 OF 2020 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against Order and Decree dated Dt. 09-07-2019 passed in M.V.O.P.NO.474 OF 2014 on the file of the court of the Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- lll Additional District Judge, At Karimnagar. Between:

1. S.K.Reshma,'Wo Late S.k.Mahmud @ Mahmud Pasha, Occu. House-hold, All are R/o H.No.4-8-62, Adarshnagar offhimmapur Mandal of Karimnagar District Aged. 32 years, , Algunur village

2. S.K.Afrin, D/o Late S.k.Mahmud @ Mahmud Pasha, Aged. 8 years, Occu. Student, being minor represented by her natural mother and next friend Smt.S.K.Reshma i.e.Appellant No. 1 .

3. S.K.Amrin, D/o Late S.k.Mahmud or Mahmud Pasha, Aged.S years, Occu. Student, being minor represented by her natural mother and next friend Smt.S.K.Reshma i.e.Appellant No. 1 .

4. S.K.Jaintunbee, Wo S.K.Peera, Aged. 60 years, Occu. House-hold Allare R/o H.No.4-8-62, Adarshnagar, Algunur village offhimmapur Mandal of Karimnagar District. ...Appellants/Petitioners AND

1. Om Prakash, S/o Nathi Lal, Aged. 36 years, Occu. Driver of lorry bearing No.MP{6-HC-0663, R/o Nagla Tak village of Fathiya Bad Tatuq of Agra District of Uttar Pradesh State.

2. Dilip Kumar, S/o Mahendra Prathap, Aged. 45 years, Occu.Owner of lorry bearing No.MP46-HC-0663, R/o Choti Bajariya village of Morene Districtof Madhya Pradesh.

3. The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, Fl/by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office (322900) Block-4O, 2nd Floor, SKY Towers, Sanjay Palace, Agra - 282OO3, Uttar Pradesh. ? s i ...Respondents/Respondents 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. S Mohd Abdul Kareem Khan, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri V. Venkatarami Reddy, Advocate for Respondent No.3. This Court doth Order and Decree as foltows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs. 17,83,600/- to Rs. 0,9,700Sd/- which shall carry interest'@ 9Yo per annum from the date o filing the claim applir:ation till the date of realization;

2. That the Respondents are directed to deposit the said enhanced comprsnss[ien amount after dul.y deducting the amount already depo'sited/withdrawn, if any within a period of two months from the date of receilrt of a copy of this Judgment;

3. That on such deposit the appellant No. 1 i.e., wifE of the deceased is awarded an amount of Rs. 6,29,700l- and the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 ie., minor daughters of the deceased are awarded an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/. each, whictr shall be kepty in fixed depsit in any Natlonalized anks till they atain majority and appellant No. 4 ie., mother of the deceased is awarded an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-;

4. That the appellant Nos. 1 and'4 be and hereby entitled to,withdraw the entire sharer of compensation amount awarded to them without furnishing any security, subject to payment of deficit court fee on the enhanced comp,ensation, for the sum awarded beyond the amount claimed by the appe lants;

5. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all otlrcr respects; and

6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. . J" Sd,. M. JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTAT.IT REGISTRARa SECTION OFFICER ,,TRUE COPY/ To,

1. The chairman Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum- lll Additional District Judge, At Karimnagar.

2. Two CD CoPies AS/DL HIGH COI'RT DATED:0i'111|ZO2S DECREE MACMA.N|o.198 ot 2O20 SHE1 t () * c 5 '{ [q ?rl)fr * ALLOWING THE MACMA