The High Court · 2025

: Sri R.Anurag (SC F,l I TSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent No.l to 3: Jagathpal Reddy K;r ;i Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.4 to 8: - - CROSS OBJECTION NO: 60 OF 2023 : Between :

1. Smt. Borra Manlula, Wo.Late Borra Jangaiah, Aged abr,r Plumber, R/o.H.No.6-276, Triveni Nagar, Balapur X Roac Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District. t 30 years, Occ. M eerpet,

2. Baby B. Sweety @ Sravanthi, D/o. Late Borra Jangaiah Occ. Student, R/o. H. No. 6-276, Triveni Nagar, BalapLrr ) Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District ,ged about 12 years, Road, Meerpet,

3. Baby B. Keziya, D/o. Late Borra Jangaiah, Aged about z R/o. H. No. 6-276, Triveni Nagar, Balapur X Road, lvleer: Ranga Reddy District. ,ears, Occ. Student, :t, Saroornagar, (Petitioners No.2 and 3 being minors represented by their guardian i.e Respondent No.1 herein namely Borra Man r mother and natural Ia) AND '- P. itioner/Respondent

1. TSRTC, Rep by its Managing Director, RTC X Fr Hyderabad

2. The Depot Manager, TSRTC, lbrahimpatnam Depot, tt Vehicle No. AP 29 Z 2589 ads, lvlusheerabad, rnga Reddy District, ...Re'; ro ndenUA ppe lla nts

3. B. Narsimha, S/o. Late Mallaih, Aged about 52 276, Triveni Nagar, Balapur X Road, Meerpet, District years, Occ. Nil, R/o. H. No. 6- Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy

4. Smt. B.Jangamma, Wo. B. Narasimha, Aged about 47 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H. No. 6-276, Triveni Nagar, Balapur X Road, Meerpet, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District.

5. Midde Srinu, S/o.Mallesh, Aged about.20years, Occ. Labour, R/o.H.No. 2-51, Loyapally Village and Manchal Mandal, R.R District

6. Routh Ravinder, S/o. Maisaiah, Aged Major, Occ. Business, R/o.Plot No.66, Sitaram Bhag, Bairamalguda, Ranga Reddy District.

7. Avula Kistaiah, S/o.Ramulu, Aged about 53 years, Occ. RTC Driver, R/o. Tippaiguda Village, Manchal Mandal, R.R District. (Respondent No.3 to 7 herein not a necessary party as no relief claimed against him rn the present appeal) ... Res po nd e nURes po n d ent (Respondent No.8 herein not a necessary party as no relief claimed against him in the present appeal.) Counsel for the Appellants : Jagathpal Reddy Kasi Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2 : Sri R.Anurag (SC FOR TSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent No.3 to 7 : -- - The Court made the following : COMMON JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DI) TI EADA M.A.C.M.A.NO.t7 0F 2021 & Cross Obiectioa No.6O of 2ol23 COMMON JUDGMENT: M.A.C.M.A is hled by the RTC, aggrieved br r re Ordcr and Decrec dated 29.08.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.999 of 20i: rassed b-r' the Motor Accidents Claims 'I'ribunal-cum-Special Sessi ns .ludge for Trial of Cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act. t989 cunr-VII Adclitional District and Sessions Juclge, Ranga Rcr r 1' Distr-ict, at L.B.Nagar (for short "the Tribunal"). Cross Obje I i,:n No.60 oi 2023 is filcd by the claimants.

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein re r.eferrr:d to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The casc of the petitioners before the Tribu'rl is that on O2.O2.2O15 at about 07.00 P.M., Borra Jangaiah i ,Jagan alor.rg rvith his daughters viz., Sravanthi, Keziya and Vinjerr I lri VUay .*.ere proceeding tou,ards Polepaliy village to atrend 11 , functiorr of relatives from Balapur Village on his bike bearing \ r. AI) 29 B(i- 5802 and when they reached near Suchira Dhaba, i I .nhrnipatnam at about O7.O0 P.M., in the mean time, the driver r- }'re CBZ bike bearing No.AP 29 BM-64a2 drove his vehicle in a. rash zrnd negligcnt manner at a high speed and dashed ri r bikc of the deceased in opposite direction due to which the clt:r t ased and [-ris daughters fell on the road and at the same time th: IITC bearing ETO,J MACMA No.17-2021 & Cross Objection No.60 of 2023 No.AP-292-2589 which was proceeding from Ibrahimpatnam to 2 Yacharam, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner ran over the fallen people, as a result Jangaiah died on the spot while his two daughters sustained fracture inj uries. I t is their case that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving o[ the bike and also due to rash and neghgent driving of the RTC bus driver bus bearing No.AP-292-2589 and thus claimed compensation of Rs. 15,O0,00o/-. 4 . Respondent Nos. 1 ernd 2 remained ex porte before the Tribuna,l.

5. Respondent No.3- the driver of the RTC bus has filed counter denying the age, occupation and earnings of the deceased and also the occurrence of the accrdent. lt rs his contention that the accident occurred due to the negligence o[ thc rider of the CBZ motor bike.

6. Respondent No.4 hled counter denying the averments of the petition and they further contended that the accidcnt has not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and tl"at their bus is not involved in the accident. It is their contenLion that while the bus was moving, Lhe driver heard the noise and after hearing the said noise, he stopped the bus and got down and verified the reason for the said sound and then he found that the deceased fell down from the motor bike while overtaking ETD,J l,4ACMA No.17_2021 & Cro.s I iection No.60 oF 2023 the bus without precautionary measures at a lL: 3 Lr speed and colluded with another motor bike and fell dou r , Tl-rus their contention is that there was no negligence of llr. hus drivcr in occrurrence of thc accident. 7 . Based on tl-re abovc rival pleadings, thc Tril-lu r rl h:rs fr:tmed the following issues: -

3. Whetlpr tlK. de.eased/ BJangonh @, Jagat clictl t, :1p at\.(let1t occurred ott 02 A2.2Ol-5, due to contributory neqluf,t tDL thc perl oJ bolh Ltehicles i.e., RTC bus beaing N1.AP 29/. ..; |i dttd (-:flz t \p )() Bttl bike l)earoLlt No.AP 29 2-2589 and CBZ bike beanrt t 648)? Whellu.r tlle petitiotlers are entiled to anll cofi4)e s,, r uthon oniT what omount? To lLh(rt relief ? t[ stt, liotrt

8. At the time of trial, petitioners got examinc.( ).Ws.l and 2, got marked Exs.A.1 to A.6. No evidence was adclur), cl on behalf ol the respondents.

9. Based on lhe evidcnce on record, the Tribr|r Ll has grirnted an amount of Rs. 14,50,000/- towards compensat ( :r. Aggr-ieved lrv tl-re said Order and Decree dated 29.O8.2() (, the prcsenr M.A.C.M.A is filed by the RTC. iO. Hcard Sri R. Anurag, learned Standing Cor r sel for TSRTC and Sri Jagathpal Reddy Kasi Reddy, Iearnr r counsel for respondent Nos. I to 3. I 1. karned Standing Counsel for TSRTC sub I irted that thc Tribunal has committed an error in awarding ts.|4,50,OOO/ tovvards compensation, fastening the liability aq r nst RTC. He argued that the Tribunal ought to have appreciat:1 the fact that ETD,J MACMA No.17-2021 & Cross Objection No 60 of 2023 4 the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the rider of th,e CBZ bike No. AP-29-BM-6482 and that there was no negligence of the RTC bus driver. He further a rgue d that the Tribunal failed to consider the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased due to the fact that he was proceeding along with his two daughters and another person on the motor bike and thus he could not control the bike which resulted in the accident. He further argued that no eye witness n,as examined to prove the accident and the tribunal has wrongly arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus. He further argued that thc Tribunal wrongly granted exorbitant compensation and prayed to set aside the order of the Tribunal.

12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal has granted meager amount of compensation and prayed to enharce the same.

13. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination:

1. Whether there was any ncgligence on part of deceased in t]le occurrence of the accident? 2. Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is 3. Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal just and reasonable? need any interference?

4. To what relieP ETD,J [\,4ACMA No.17 2021 & Cro;s a ij,rction No.50 of 2023 5

14. POINT NO.1: a) lt is the con[ention of the RTC that the ar:r:: lent occurred duc to the negligence of the deceased and also dur' , lhe rasfr and negligcrrce of the rider of the bike bearing No. Ap 9 Z,2rB9. A perusal of the F.l.R and charge shect under Exs.A i rnd A.2 would reveal that the accident occurred due to the rash irir Lnegligence of the: ricler of the CBZ bike and also due to the ras I ancl ncgligcnt drir.ing of the RTC bus driver. The charge sheer j; [-rled agarnsl boLh of them. P.W.2 was examined by the peritl ters z1s an eye wilr-ress. He deposed that he was travelling in the I rs bearing No. AP-292 2589 and that deceased is his brother-in lrw proceccling along rvith his daughters and when they reached Sr chitra Dhaba, CBZ blke driven by its rider in a rash and negliger i lnanner camc in opposite direction and dashed the bike of the (l( ccased duc to whrch the deceased and his two daughters fell cl,>,,n and at the same time, the RTC bus driven by its driver in a ra:.1 and ncgligenl manner ran over the deceased and his daughters. In his cross_ examination it is elicited that at the time of accidr:rr , the dcceased and the bus n ere travelling in the same directicr ancl that the deccased over took the bus and he further admi _r :d that in the mt:an time CBZ Bike bearing No.Ap-29-BM-64g1 came ir-r the opposite direction and dashed against the decea:u C. Thus it is ETD,I MACMA No.17_2021 & Cross Objedion No.60 of 2023 clear from the evidence on record that the bike of the deceased, 6 after overtaking the bus was hit by another bike coming in opposite direction as a result of which the deceased and his daughters fell down and immediately the bus which is coming from behind ran over them. Thus it is evident that there was rash and negligence on part of Lhe rider of the molor bike bearing No.AP-29-BM 6482 and also the driver of the bus. The driver of the bus could not avert the accident though he could see that the deceased and his children fell on the road as they were hit by the opposite bike. Therefore, it is held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the rider of CBZ bike and also the RTC driver. Thus no contributory negligence can be attributed to the deceased. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

15. POINT NO.2: (b) It is contended by the RTC that the compensation awarded by the Tritrunal is excessive while the claimants seek enhancement of compensation. According to the petitioner the deceased was aged about 33 years and was working as a plumber and used to earn Rs.10,0OO/- per month. In Ramrrcha,nd.rappa Vs. Manage1 Rogal Sundara,m Allidnce Insttrance Compang Limitedt t the Apex Court has held that in the absence of any proof of income with regard to a labourer, Rs.4,500/- per month can be ' lzor ry ro scc z:o ETD,.J MACMA No.17-2021 & Crols I jection No.60 of 2023 safely taken as the income. In the said case, der:, 7 ased used to work as a iabourer and the accident occurred in th€ 'ear 2004 but in the present case, deceased used to work as a plu lber ancl the accident occurred in 2015. The Tribunal has takr r the monthly income of the dcccascd as Rs.8,00O I - on a reasonat e hypothesis. This Courl is ol the oprnion that the iearned Tribur al has rightly assesscd the income of the deceased as Rs.8,OOO/- 1x r rnonth. c) As pcr thc dicta laid down in National Insuru rce Compang Limited Vs. Pranag Sethi &.Others2, 4Oo/o of the i:r :ome needs to be aclded towards future prospects. A perusal rf the P.M.E report/trx.A.3 reveals that the deceased was aE :d 30 years. Therefore, adding 4O%o lowards future prospec: Rs.11,200/ (Rs.8,OOO/-x 40lrOO : 3,2OO/-l per would give nonth, r,r'hich comes to Rs. 1 1 ,200/ x 12 = Rs. 1,34,4OO I per annrl d) The number of claimants herein are five and -; n. .erefore, I / 5fr deduction need to be made to his income tov,r rds personal expenses and this would come up to Rs. I,O7,52O/- | ts.1,34,4O0l- (-) Rs.26,880/-) e) The Post Mortem Examination report f,rled :nder Ex.A.3 reveals the age of the deceased as 30 years. The m- tiplier should be chosen with regard to the age of the deceased, t s per column No.4 of the table given in Sarlq. Venna a. Del i Transport 2 AtR 2ot7 scc 5157 -2,? Z./ ETD,J MAClvlA No-17_2021 & Cros5 Objection No.60 of 2023 8 Corporation3. The deceased being aged 30 years, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is '17'. Therefore, the loss of dependency comes upto Rs.18,27,84O /- (Rs.1,07,520 /- X 17- Rs.18,27,840/-). 0 In the light of Pranag Sethi's case, Rs.40,00O/, ton ards loss of consortium, Rs. 15,0OO/- towards loss of estate and Rs- t5,OO0/- towards funeral expenses have to be awarded. It was lurther held that the said amounts have to be enhanced by lOo/o for every three years. g) In Magma General Insurance Com4tang Llnited u. Nanu Ram (a) Chuhru Ro,m and othersa, the Apex Court has elaborately discussed the principles laid down in Pranag Sethd's case and has lurther held that the parents and children of the deceased are also entitled to loss of consortium. Therefore, in the present case, the claimants would get Rs.48,400/- each towards loss of consortium, hence, the compensation amount under this head would be Rs.2,42,OOOl- (Rs.aB,a0O/- X 5 = Rs.2,42,OOo/-). Further an amount of Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate and Rs-18,150/ towards funeral expenses have to be awarded. Therefore, claimants are entitled for the compensation in the following terms: t 2 Loss of dependency Loss of Estate Rs. la,27,a4O/- Rs. 18,150/- r 2009 (6) SCC 121 u (2018) 18 scc r3o 3 4 Funeral Expenses 9 Loss of Consortium TOTAL ETD,J l"4ACMA No.17_2021 & Crols I jcctron No.60 cf 2023 Rs. ,8,150/ Rs. t ,,+2,OOOl Rs. 21, t6,l40l- h) Thereforc, the compensation awarded b.y t i : Tribunal is enhanced fronr Rs. 14,5O,OOO/- to that of Rs.21,tr( ,14O/- which would be justificd in the present case. point N<. I is answered accordingly. 1€ POINT NO.3: In vieu. of thc finding arrived at point Nos. 1 t, 2, it is held that the ordcr and dccree passed by the Triburr Ll need Lo be modified and accordingly compensation granted by I re Tribunal to \ the extent of Rs. 14,5O,OOO/ - is enhanced to Rs.19, I i .SOO/ -. \ \ POINT NO.4: I7- In the result, tl-re MACMA filed by the TSR'] ) is dismissed and Cross Objection No_60 of 2023 filed by 1l t claimants is allowed by modifying rhe Order and Decree date< 29.Og.2019 in M.V,O.P.No.999 of 2015 passed by the Motor Ar:, i6[6n1" Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cz ;es under SCs and STs (POA) Act, 19S9-cum-VII Additional Distric and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar, t nhancing the compensation from Rs. 14,50,000/- to Rs.21,06. J 1O/ _ and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry inter.r st @) Z.S o/o per ETD,J NTACMA No.17_2021 & Cross Objection No.60 of 2023 annum from the date of "t.i- p.iiotio., till realization. However, rhe interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. Appellants TSRTC is directed to deposit the compensation amount r,,,'ith accrued interest within a period of two months from the dale of receipt of a copy of this judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited. On such deposit, claimants are entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security, as per their respectivc shares as allolted by the Tribunal. The claimants are also directed to pay the dehcit court fee on the enhanced amount. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed. ' SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUW REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// s CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-- Spl' sessions Judge For Trial of cases under scs A"a"si.'ipoAtnci rseg cum vll Additional District Xrisli.i".t Judge Ranga Reddy District' At L B Nagar' 2. One CC to Sri R.Anurag (SC For TSRTC)' Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Jagathpal Reddy Kasi Reddy' Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies Svs/l)SL HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 i. r iES () o O I llit ?[25 COMMON JUDGMENT + COMMON DE MACMA.No.17 of 2021 AND cRoss oBJECTION NO.60 0F 2023 ,;/ j Lil )r:q,: .: (l fiEtr DISMISSING THE MACMA AND ALLOWING THE CROSS OBJECTION I\, f [ 3444 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAO FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLA NEOUS APPEAL NO: 17 OF 2021 & Cross Obiection No: 60 OF 2023 MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MI SCELLANEOU S APPEAL NO: 17 OF 2021 : Between : Hyderabad

1. TSRTC, Rep by its lvlanaging Director. RTC X Roads, Musheerabad,

2. The Depot Manager, TSRIC, lbrahimpatnam Depot, Ranga Reddy District, Vehicle No. AP 29 22589 ..Appel lants/Respondents AND 4 J Smt. Borra Maniula, Wo.Late Borra Jangaiah, Aged about 30 years, Occ. Plumber, R/o.H.No.6-276, Triveni Nagar, Balapur X Road, Meerpet, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District. Babv B. Sweetv @ Sravanthi, D/o. Late Borra Jangaiah, Aged about 12 years, Occ. Student, Rlol tt. No. 6-276, Triveni Nagar, Balapur X Road' Meerpet, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District Babv B. Keziva, D/o. Late Borra Jangaiah. Aged about 4 years Occ. Student, R/o.'H. No. 6-276, Triveni Nagar, Balapur X Road, Meerpet, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District. B. Narsimha, S/o. Late Mallaih, Aged about 52 years, Occ. Nil, R/o. H No 6- 276, Triveni Nagar, Balapur X Road, Meerpet, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District b 5 7 I I Smt. B.Jangamma, Wo. B. Narasimha, Aged about 47-years, Occ. Housewife,-R/o. H. No. 6-276, Triveni Nagar, Balapur X Road, Meerpet, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District. ... ResPondents/Petitioners (Resoondents No.2 and 3 beinq minors represented by their mother and hatuial guardian i.e Respondent No.1 herein namely Borra Manjula.) Midde Srinu, S/o.Mallesh, Aged about.20years' Occ Labour, R/o.H.No 2-51, Loyapally Village and Manchal Mandal, R.R District Routh Ravinder, S/o. Maisaiah, Aged. Major, Occ. Business, R/o.Plot No 66' Sitaram Bhag, Bairamalguda, Ranga Reddy District.

10.Avula Kistaiah, S/o.Ramulu, Aged about.53 years, Occ. llTC Driver, Ri1o. Tippaiguda Village, Manchal Mandal, R.R Diskict. (Res I rndent No 8 herein not a necessary party as no relief claimed against him i I :he lrresent appeal) .Respc'r dents/Respondents (Respondent No.8 herein not a necessary party as no relief cl:rr ned against him in the present appeal.) Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Ac rnd Memorandum of Cross Objections under Order 41 Rule 22 C.P.C., agains the Judgment and decree rn MVOP.No.999 of 2015 dated 29.08.20'19 on i e file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum- Spl. Sessrons Judge For l -ial Of Cases Under Scs And Sts (POA) Act, 19Bg Cum Vll Additional Distrrct rnd Sessrons Judge Ranga Reddy District, At L. B Nagar CROSS OBJECTION NO:60 oF 2023 Between : 1 Smt Borra Manjula, W/o.Late Borra Jangaiah, Aged abc rt 30 years. Occ. Plumber. R/o H No.6-276, Triveni Nagar Balapui X Ro: I l\,4eerpet. Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Baby B. Sweety @ Sravanthi, D/o. Late Borra Jangaiah. Aged about 12 years Occ Student. R/o. H. No. 6-276, Triveni Nagar, Balapu- ( Road, Meerp6t, Saroornagar. Ranga Reddy Drstrict 3 Baby B. Keziya, D/o Late Borra Jangaiah, Aged about 4 years, Occ. Student, R/o H. No. 6-276, Triveni Nagar, Baiapur X Road, [/leer ret, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District. (Petitioners No.2 and 3 being minors represented by th: . mother and natural guardian i.e Respondent No.1 herein namely Borra Marr .rla ) AND ... F'r titio n e r/Res pon dent 1 2 TSRTC, Rep by its lVlanaging Director, RTC X ::ads, Musheerabad. Hyderabad T.he Depot \aqn^a^gqr_]-S-RTC, lbrahimpatnam Depot. t.anga Reddy District, Vehicle No. AP 29 Z 2589 3 B Narsimha, S/o. Late tMallaih, Aqed about 52 v 276, Triveni Nagar. Balapur X Roid. Meerpet, S District Smt B.Jangemmq Wg B. Narasimha, Aged about 47 1 ears, Occ Housewife, Rio. H.No.6-276, Triveni Nag-r, Balapur X i oad, Meerpet, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy Diskict. 4 ...Rr: ;pondenUAppellants ears. Cr, c. Nil, R/o. H. No. 6- aroorn;t qar, Ranga Reddy 5 7 IVlidde Srinu, S/o.l\/allesh, Aged about.2Oyears, Occ. t_zrl our, R/o.H No. 2-51, Loyapally Village and Manchal Mandal, R.R District Routh Ravinder, S/o. lt4aisaiah, Aged. Major, Occ. Busir -'ss, R/o.plot No.66, Sitaram Bhag, Bairamalguda, Ranga Redijy District. Avula Kistaiah, S/o.Ramulu, Aged about.S3 years, Occ lTC Driver, R/o. Tippaiguda Village, Manchat Mandal, R.R District. '.',q;=d7 (Respondent No.3 to 7 herein not a necessary party as no relief claimed against him in the present appeal) ...RespondenURespondent (Respondent No.8 herein not a necessary party as no relief claimed against him in the present appeal. ) These appeals coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeals, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower court and the material papers in the Case and upon hearing the arguments of Srr R.Anurag (SC FOR TSRTC), Counsel for the appellant in MACMA and Respondent No 1 & 2 in cross objections and sri Jagathpal Reddy Kasi Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 to 3 in MACIvIA and for the Appellants in cross objections and None appeared for the Respondent No.3 to 7. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows :

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.17 of 202'1 filed by the TSRTC be and here by is dismissed and the Cross-objections No.60 of 2023 filed by the claimants is allowed;

2. That by modifying the Order and Decree dated 29.08 2019 in M.V.O.p.No.999 of 2015 passed by the Motor Accidents CIaims Tribunal-cum-special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs and STs (pOA) Act, i989-cum- Vll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy Distrrct, at L.B.Nagar,

3. That by enhancing the compensation from Rs.14,50,0001 to Rs.2i ,06,14Ot- and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of claim petition till realization;

4. That However, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited; 5. That the Appellants - TSRTC is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest withrn a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited; 6. That on such deposit, claimants are entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security, as per therr respective shares as allotted by the Tribunal;

7. That the claimants are also directed to pay the deficit court fee on the enhanced amount. B. That there shall be no order as to costs. _,,._-9l+v //TRUE COPY/i To, SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL I EPUTY REGISTRAR \ \' OFFICER

1. The Motor Accidents craims Trrbunar-cum- spr. Sess r ns Judge For Triar of cases Under scs And sts (poA) Act, 1989 cum vt Additi6nar Di;tr;;t And Sessions Judge Ranga Reddy District, At L.B. Nir ar.

2. fwo CD Copies Svs/PSL. 9- HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 COMMON DECREE MACMA.No.17 of 2021 AND CROSS OBJECTION NO.6O OF 2023 DISMISSING THE MACMA AND ALLOWING THE CROSS OBJECTION \ y,(