The High Court · 2025

V. Konda Reddy, S/o Late Venkat Reddy, Age.59 years, Occ: Retd employee, Smt. V.Venkatamma, S/o V.Konda Reddy, Age. 52 years, Occ: house hold. (Both r/o H.No.1-j0-122t1t2,,neat Hanuman temple, Shasab gutta, Mahabubnagar proper. Mandal and district. J Smt A. Sathvamma. Wo I ate A.Anantha Reddy, Age: 60 years, Occ: house hold r/o Mahabubnagar AND ...APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS VGoverdhan Chary, S/o. _ Srinivasa Chary, Age:ma1or. Occ. Owner of Mahendra Botero Cbmpe, sc ils cooo 6JriudB"vlnicte bearrnq No Sd/_ Ap -z2y -2081 r/o H Nd r -r railota-vir[s", "chi;r;cr,i"tn"Jirl,i'" il";.t]i, Atmakur Taluq, Mahabubnagar. Shriram Generat lnsurance C^ompany Limite.d. Represented by its Manaqer, Legat Ce,. H No 3-6-5/7 Sai oatr'i nicaoe,;fi ii;5;, ;hiN;;6i;0i & 4,0"j, street No.6, Himayatnagar. Hyderabad. ---' ' 2 ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants: Sri Mohd. Yousuf Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri N. Mohan Krishna Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : None Appeared The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.No.1 569 0F 2018 AND M.A.C.M.A.No.1672 OF 2018 COMMON JUDGMENT: I . These two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.1569 of 2018, hled by Shriram General Insurance Company challenging the order of the Tribunal and M.A.C.M.A.No.1672 of 2018, filed by the claimants seeking enhancement ol' compe nsation, are directed against the very same order dated 22.O2.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.l91 of 20I4, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Family Court - cum- VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

2. For the sar.kc of convenience, the parties herein are referred as the1. were arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

3. The brief lacts o[ the case are that the claim petitioners, who are the in-laws and mother of Late Smt.V. Narmada (hereinafter referred as "the deceased"), filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs. l7,SO,00O/ - for the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 27.04.2OI2. It is stated by the petitioners that on 27 .O4.2O 12 , when the deceased accompanied her l-rusband as a pillion rider on his Motor Cycle bearing No.Ap-2g-CD- g972 for I 2 MG P,J MACMA.N1i.1569 ood 1672 ol201E attending their relatives funeral rites and were proceeding towards left side of the road, on the way, at about 3.00 P.M., when they were near to Housing Board Colony in front of Darga gate, within the limits of Jadcherla, a Mahendra Bolero Comper SC XLE Goods carriage vehicle bearing No.AP-22Y-2081 came in opposite direction from Mahabubnagar side and proceeding towards Jadcherla and which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, came towards extreme right side of the road by crossing middle line of the road and dashed against the motorcycle on which deceased was travelling' As a result, the deceased along with her husband iell down and sustained severe injuries and the motorcycle was also compietely damaged' Immediately, they both were shifted to SVS Hospital' Mahabubnagar, for treatment and the husband of the deceased succumbed to injuries on the same day while undergoing treatment in the Hospital and the deceased-Narmada was shifted to Apollo Hospital for better treatment. As her condition was not stable, she was treated as inpatient and while undergoing treatment, she went into septic shock arld had cardiac arrest and deciared dead on 19.O5.2O12.

4. Based on a complaint, Police of Jadcherla Police Station, registered a case in Crime No. lO9 of 2Ol2 under Section 304-A IPC, conducted investigation and hled charge sheet against the t 3 MGP,J MACMA Not.l569 ond 1672 ol2Ot8 driver of Mahendra Bolere Q6mpsr SC XLE Goods Carriage Vehicle bearing No.AP-22Y-208 1

5. It is started by the petitioners that at the time of accident, the deceased was quite hale and healthy, aged about 27 years and had completed short term vocational certihcate course (module wise) at GovernmenL of Andhra pradesh State Institute ol. Vocational Education, Vignan, ICSS Vocational Institute, Mahabr_rbnagar and also pursued M.Com in the year 2OOZ and, was working as an Accountant in riifferent offices at Hyderabad and used to draw salary of Rs.1O,0OO/- per month. It is also stated by ihe petitioners that the deceased was an LIC policy holder for assured sum of Rs.5,O0,O0O/- and is paying installment policy premium of Rs.35,383/ commenced from 28.O3.2O12.

6. It is further statecl by the petitioners that the deceascd sustained blunt injury on abdomen, liver laceration, compound fracture of right femur, Grade_III, compound fracture of both bones of right leg, Grade-rrr, Fracture of superior and inferior public rami bilateral and other multiple bleeding and grievous injuries all over the body besides fractures and underwent operation on O3.05.2012 for DCS right fenrur nailing of right tibia and transposition of flap in SSG of right thigh besides knee amputation to her right thigh and also underu,ent multiple attempts of debridement. It is also stated by the petitioners that they spent an amount of I 4 MGP,J MACMA-Not.156g dnd 16?2 ol 2018 Rs. 1O,00,00O/- for treatment of the deceased-Narmada and also spent an amount of Rs.5O,O0O/- towards attendant charges' extra nourishment and special diet during the period of treatment' Due tosuddendeathofthedeceased,theclaimantshadlosttheir beloved daughter-in-law's and daughter's love and affection and had lost their caretaker and were subjected to mental agony' Therefore, filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs' 17'50'00O/- against the Respondent Nos' 1 & 2' who are the owner and the insurer of the crime vehicle-MAHENDRA Bolero Comper SC XLs Goods Carriage vehicle bearing No'AP-22Y-2O81' Before the Tribunal, Respondent No' l/owner of the crime 7 . vehicle firled his counter denying the averments made in the claim petition and stated that the driver of the crime vehicle is having valid license to ply the vehicle on the road and that the claim of compensation is excess and exorbitant and hence prayed dismiss the claim against it' CompanY filed its counter

8. ResPondent No-2/ Insurance denying the contents of the claim negligent driving of the driver of deceased and contended that the knowing the fact that the driver of the crime vehicle do not possess valid and effective license to drive the vehicle' handed over the said vehicle to him and violated the policy conditions and therefore' the petition including, rash and crime vehicle, income of the respondent No. 1, insPite of I t 5 MGP,J MACMA Not 1569ond 1672 oJ20t8 rnsurance comp:rnv is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. It also contended that the owner and insurer of the motorcycle are proper and necessary parties to the petition and that the compensation claimed is excess and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim against it.

9. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal had framed the following issues for conducting trial:- (t) Wlrcther the accident occurred on 27.O4.2O12 at about 3.0O p.m., near Housing Board Colony in the limits of Jadclrcrla, due to the rosh and negligent diuing of .the diuer of the uehicle i.e., MAHENDRA Bolero Comper SC XL5 (ioods Carriage vehicie bearing No.AP-22Y-2081 ? (i, Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation amount? If so, to what amount? (iit) To uhat relieJ?

10. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs 1 to 5 rvere examined and Exs.Al to A21 were marked. On behalt of respondents, RW 1 rvas examined and Ex.B l-Copy of Insurance policy u'as marked. 1 1. After conside ring the entire oral and documentary evidence available on rec'ord, the learned Tribunal had partll-2llowed the claim petition of the petitioners by awarding compensation of Rs.13,86,568/ .rlong n,ith interest @ 9%' per annum from the date 6 MGP,J MACMA.NaS.1559 ond 1672 oJ 20,4 of petition till the date of deposit payable by both the respondent Nos. I & 2 jointly and severally Challenging the same, the present appeals came to be filed by the Insurance Company and claim M.A.C.M.A.Nos. 1569 and 1672 of 20la petitioners vide respectively.

12.HeardSiiN.MohanKrishna,learnedStandingCounselfor appellant/ Insurance Company in M A'C M A'No' 1569 of 2O18 and Sri Mohd.Yousuf, learned counsel for the claim petitioners in M.A.C.M.A.No .1672 of 2018. Perused the record'

13. The contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company in M'A'C'M A'No' 1569 of 2018 are that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the owner and insurer of the motorcycle as proper and necessary parties to the petition; Rs.10,O00/- Per erred in fixing the income of the deceased @ month without any basis, erred in awarding conventional heads against the settted proposition of law and also erred in awarding excess interest @ 9o/o per annum and therefore requested to allow the Appeal by setting aside the order of the amounts under Iearned Tribunal.

14. On the other hand, the contentions of the learned Counsel respondents/ claim petitioners / A ppellants in M.A.C.M.A.No .1672 of 20 18 are that the learned Tribunal failed to award future prospects to the income of the deceased; failed to I t I 7 MGP,J MAaMA.Not 1569 ond 1672 of 2018 consider the Medical Bills hled under Exs.A 1 1 to A 13 and also failed to consider thc evidence of PW3 who deposed about the payment made tou'zrrds treatment of the deceased and also failed to award amoun[s trnder conventional Heads by folbwing the judgment of the Hon'blc Apex Court and hence requested for enhancement o[ compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal.

15. Now the points that emerges for determination are, Whether the order passed bg the Tibunal requires interference of this Court ? Whether the appellants/ claim petitioners are entitted for enhartcement of compens ation? 1 2 POINTS:-

16. A pcrusal of the material available on record would make it cle ar that Lhcrc <;r;curred an acciden t on 27 .O4 .2O 12 within the limits of Jadcherla and the husband of the dece ased while undergoing treaLment ar Mahabubagar SVS Hospital, succumbed to the injuries on lhc same day of accident and the deceased died on l9-05.20I 2 rlut: tr> cardiac arrest and septic shock.

17. It is the contcnrion of the learned Standing Counsel for Appellant/ I nsurance Company that the learned Tribunal failed t<r consider the ou'ner :r nd insurer of the motorcycle bearing No.Ap_ 2a-CD-8972 as pr()pcr and necessary parties to the petition I8. [n rhis regarri, it is pertinent to refer to the evidence of pWS_ an eye witness to l.ho incirlent, who deposed that on 22.O4.2O12, I 8 MGP,J MACMA.N1i. 1559 ond 16) 2 ol 2O1E when he was proceeding from Jadcherla to Mahabubnager on his vehicle, on the way when he reached near Housing Board Colony in front of Darga gate within the limits of Jadcherla at about 3 00 P.M., in front of him, one Mahendra Bolero Comper Goods Carriage vehicle bearing No.AP-22Y -2O81, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed against the Motorcycle bearing No.Ap-28-CD- 5972, due to which the rider and pillion rider of the said motorcycle fell down and sustained grievous injuries and immediately they were shifted to SVS Hospital' Mahabubnagar. On enquiry, he came to know that both the injured persons succumbed to injuries in the Hospital He stated that the said accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Mahendra Bolero Goods vehicle bearing No'AP-22Y-2081'

19. Though PWS was cross-examined by the Insurance Company, nothing adverse was elicited from him to disbelieve his testlmonY

20. Further, a perusal Ex.A 1 clearty shows that Police of Jadcherla Police Station, Mahabubnagar District, registered a case in Crime No. 109 of 2Ol2 under Sections 304,{ and 337 IPC' conducted investigation and frled charge sheet under Ex'A2 against the driver of the crime Bolero Goods vehicle'

21. Therefore, from the evidence of PW5 coupled with the documentary evidence under Exs Al & A2, it is made clear that the I t \ 9 MGP,J MACMA.N,i 1569 ond 1672 ol2018 death of the deccased was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Cnme Bolero Goods vehicle. As no contributory negligence is attributed cn part of the rider of the motorcycle, making the insured :rnd insurer of the said motorcycle as necessary parties to the claim petition does not arise. Hence, the contention of thc lcarned Standing Counsel in this regard is unsu stainable.

22. The other t:ontenLion made by [he learned Standing Counsel for Insurance Cornpanl is with regard to income of the deceased.

23. A perusal of the evidcnce of PWI discloses that the deceased is a Post-Graduate and used to earn Rs.1O,0OO/- per month by working as an Accountant in different offices at Hyderabad. She also did short term Vocational course at Govt. of A.p.State Institute of Vocational lldtrcation, Vignan, ICSS Vocationa[ Institute, Mahabubnagar and rras also a LIC policy holder paying monthly premium amount ol Rs.35,383/- which was started before the accident. Further, the certificates under Exs.A19 & A20 would reveal that the cleceascd had acquired knou'ledge in Tally Financial Accounting Program and Electronic Data processing in addition to her Posl -Graduation and had chances of securing Government job Hence, thc learnr:d Tribunal, after considering all the above aspects, asse sst-d thc inr:ome of thc deceased @ Rs. 10,000/-. This 10 MG P,I MACMA Nos.l569 ond ,512ol2018 Court hnds the same to be reasonable and is not inclined to interfere with the same.

24. Coming to the quantum of compensation, it is the contention of the learned counsel for appellants/ claim petitioners in M.A.C.M.A.No.1672 of 2018 that the learned Tribunal failed to award future prospects to the income of the deceased'

25. This Court, by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between National Insurance Co' Ltd' Vs' Pranay Sethir, is inclined to add 40% towards future prospects to the income of the deceased for the deceased being 28 years old at the time of accident. Upon such addition, the future monthly income comes to Rs.14,0OO/-. Since the number of dependents are three, if 1/3ra is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, then her net monthly income would be Rs'9,333/- and the annual income woutd be Rs.1,11,996/- Since the deceased was aged 28 years, the relevant multiptier as per the decision of Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, is '17' and after applying the said multiplier, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 19,03,932/-. 1' {zo r z {o) t zo sc) I L7 MG P,J MACMA Nos.1569 ood 1672 oJ 2018

26. It is also conlended by learned counsel for the claimants that the learned Tribunal lailed to ag.ard amounts under conventional Heads by following the judgment of the Honble Apex Court.

27. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.l6,5OO/- towards funeral expenses and a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - towards loss of love and affection. This Court finds the said amounts to be meager and is inclined to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal and hereby award an amount of Rs.77,000/- tou,ards conventional heads i.e. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses based on'the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insttrance Co. Ltd. Vs.Pranay Sethl & others (2017 ACJ 27OO).

28. It is also contcndcci bv the learned counsel for claimants that the learned Tribunal larilcd to considcr Medical Bills filed under Exs.A 1 I to A 1 3 and zrlso failed to consider the evrdence of PW3 who deposed about the payment made towards treatment of the deceased.

29. As seen from the impugned order, the learned Tribunal observed at Pagc No.13 that evidence of PW3 cannot be considered as he is not an Orthopaeclic ian and that the surgeries will be done under Arograsree. A perusal of Exs.Al l to Al2 does not disclose that the patic nt / deceased has obtained treatment at Apollo t2 MGP,] MACMA Nos- t559 ond 1572 ol2018 Hospital under Aroryasree scheme. Further, a suggestion was given to PW3 in the cross-examination that Exs.A11 & A12 were covered under Aro$/asree scheme, but the same was denied by PW3. Though PW3 may not be an Orthopaedician, but certainly he is rendering his services as a Deput5z Medical Superintendent in Apollo Hospital and as such, he will be the appropriate person to depose as to whether the patient/deceased obtained treatment under Arogzasree scheme or not. Thus, the evidence of PW3 coupled with Exs.A11 to A12 shall be considered while awarding appropriate compensation.

30. Further, Ex.A13 are the bunch of original blood supply-cum- delivery receipts (17 in number) for Rs.70,80O/- issued by Chiranjeevi Eye and Blood Bank and Sunshine Hospitals. Though concerned officials of Chiranjeevi Eye and Blood Bank and Sunshine Hospitals were not examined, it is to be seen that the deceased has sustained grievous injuries and underwent treatment for a considerable period of 23 days in two Hospitals, certainly, the deceased would have required any amount of blood for her recovery. Thus, the family members of the deceased shall be compensated for the amount under Ex.A13. Thus in all, the petitioners are entitled for a total compensation which is calculated as under:- ) ) 13 MG P,J MACMA Nos 1569 ond 1672 ol2O1B S.No. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 Awarded by the Tribunal the Rs. 10,O00/- Name of the Head I ncome deceased Amount arrived after addition of future

40.h Awarded this Court. Rs 14,0O0/- Income arrived after deduction of I /3,d towards personal N SES Loss releva of earnings applying nt-multlplie r Rs.6,667 l- Rs 9,333/- Rs. 13,60,068/- Rs 19,03,932l- Convcn tional heads Rs.26,5OO/ Rs.77 000 Medical incurred Amount incurred for supply of blood to the dcceased . TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs 6,70,0OO/- Rs 70,800/- Rs. 13,86,568/- Rs.27 ,21 ,7 32 I - It

31. is also contendcd by the learned counsel for appellant/ Insurance Company that the Tribunal erred in awarding interest @ 9o/o per annum from the date o[ petition till the date of deposit. This Court, by relying upon rhe decision of the Honble Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others2, interfere -,2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35 1,4 MGP,J MACMA.N?i 1559 dnd 1672 ol 2018 with the linding of the learned Tribunal and hereby award interest @ 7.5o/o per annum amount from the date of petition till the date of reaiization

32. As far as liabitity is concerned, since Ex.Bl-Copy of Insurance iolicy was in force as on the date of accident, this Court is of the considered opinion thar the Tribunal had rightly frxed the Iiability upon respondents 1 & 2 in paying the compensation amount'

33. Since the compensation arrived is more than the claim amount, this Court, by relying upon the decision of the Hon'trle Supreme Court in the case between Nagappa Vs.Gurudayal Singh and others 3 is inclined to allow the Appeal by enhancing the compensation more than the claim amount

34. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No. 1569 of 2018 ftled by Appellant/ lnsurance Company is partly-allowed by reducing the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal from 9 o/o to 7 '5o/o per annum and M.A.C.M.A.No .1672 ol 2018 filed by the claim petitioners is allowed enhancing the compensation amount from Rs' 13,86,568/- to Rs.27,21,7321- which shall carry interest @ 7.5o/o p'a' from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by both the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such deposit' the 'AIR 2oo3 sc 674 t I t 15 MGP,J MACMA.Nor.1569 ond 1572 ol20tB claim petitioners are entitled to withdraw the same as per the apportionment made by the learned Tribunal- There shall be no order as to costs.

35. Miscellan<:ous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/. MOHD. ISMAIL IS NT REGISTRAR ASS Ti CTION OFFICER l The Motor Accidents craims Tribuna r-cum-Fam iry courrcum-VIr Additionar District & Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar (with records, if any)

2. One CC to Sri N Mohan Krishna, Advocate tOpUCl 3. One CC to Sri Mohd. yousuf, Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CD Copies karn/gh 'k i:i / !e HIGH COURT DATED:10101t2025 COMMON JUDGMENT+COMMON DECREE MACMA.No.1569 of Z01B AND MACMA.N o.1672 of 2018 r i!:r: i[ 1 llAi] 2025 .-1 a) ,) \,, MACMA No.1569 of 2018 IS PARTLY ALLOWED MACMA No.1672 of 2018 IS ALLOWED &l tl x( IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT, JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.No: 1569 of 2018 AND M.A.C.M.A.No.1672 of 2018 M.A.C.M.A.No.1 569 of 2018 Between: Shriram General lnsurance Company Limited, Represented by its Manager, Legal Cell, H.No.3-6-5/7, Sai Datti Aicade,4rh Fto6r. Ftat No.4'01, 402 &d$', street No.6, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad, 500029 (Policy No.100031311121475963 lssulng Office, Rajasthan, 302022, Period of insurance- F rom 27 -01 -2012 to 26-01 -2013) ...AppellanURespondent No.2 AND

1. V. Konda Reddy, S/o Late Venkat Reddy, Age:59 years, Occ: Retd employee, 2. Smt. V.Venkatamma, S/o V.Konda Reddy, Age: 52 years, Occ: house hold. (Both r/o H.No.1-10-1221112, near Hanuman temple, Shasab gutta, Mahabubnagar proper, Mandal and district. 3 Smt A. Sathyamma, Wo Late A.Anantha Reddy, Age: 60 years, Occ: house hold r/o Mahabubnagar.

4. VGoverdhan Chary, S/o- Srinivasa Chary, Age:major, Occ: Owner of M-atendra Bolero Comper Sc,XLS Good Carriage Vehicle bearing No Ap 22 Y 2081 rlo H.No.1-'1, Lalkoth Village, Chinna Chinthakunta Mandal, Atmakur Taluq, Mahabubnagar, ...Respondents/Petitioners M.A.C.M.A.No. 1672 ot 2O18 Between: '1. V. Konda Reddy, S/o Late Venkat Reddy, Age.59 years, Occ: Retd employee, 2. Smt. V.Venkatamma, S/o V.Konda Reddy, Age: 52 years, Occ: house hold -7 (Both r/o H.No.1-'10-122l1l2,.near Hanuman temple, Shasab gutta, Mahabubnagar proper, Mandal and district. 3 Smt A. Sathyamma, Wo Late A.Anantha Reddy, Age: 60 years, Occ: house hold r/o Mahabubnagar. AND ..APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS 1 V Goverdhan Chary, S/o. Srinivasa Chary, Age:ma.jor, Occ: Owner of l-Vlilelgr3^pglero Comper Sg XlS Good Cdrriage Vehicte bearing No. Sd/_ AP -22Y -2081 r/o H.No.1-1, Lalkota Village, Ch-inna Chinthakunia Mandal, Atmakur Taluq. Mahabubnagar. 2 Shriram General lnsurance Comoanv Limited Legal Cell. H.No.3-6-5/7. Sai Datt'a Aicade, 4'h street No.6,Himayatnagar, Hyderabad. , Represented Floor, Flat No 40 its Manager, 1, 402 & 403, ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Appeals filed under Section ',l73 of M.V.Act aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 22-02 2018 passed in ]r/Vop.No.1g'1 0f 2014 0n the file oFthe court of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-Family court-cum-vlll Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar These appeals coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the court below and the material papers in the MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N. Mohan Krishna, SC FOR INSURANCE COMPANY or the Appbilant in MACMA No.1569 of 2018 and Respondent No.2 in MACIVA No 1672 of 2018 and of sri Mohd. yousuf, Advocate for the Respondent Nos 1 to 3 in MACMA No. 1569 of 2o1g and Appelrants in MACMA.No.1672 of 2018. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 That the M A.C [/1.A.No 1569 of 2018 filed by AppellanUlnsurance Company be and hereby is partry-aflowed by reducing the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal from g% to 7 .S% per annum;

2. Thal the M A C M.A.No 1672 of 2OjB filed by the claim petitioners be and hereby is allowed enhancing the compensation amount from Rs. 13,g6,568/- to Rs.27 ,21 ,732l- which shall carry interest @ 7.5"k per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by both the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

3. That on such deposit, the claim petitioners be and hereby are entitled to withdraw the same as per the apportionment made by the learned Tribunal;

4. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- MOHD. ISMAIL ASSI T NT REGISTRAR S CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Family Court-cum-Vlll Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar

2. Two CD Copies q, HIGH COURT DATED:1010112025 COMMON DECREE MACMA.No.1569 ot 2018 AND MACMA.No.1672 of 2018 MACMA No.1569 of 2018 IS PARTLY ALLOWED MACMA No.1672 of 2018 IS ALLOWED IL o{lel