The High Court · 2025

Petition under Order Vl Rule 17 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the Petitioners to amend the claim petition in O.P.No. 1773 of 20'16 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad by enhancing the claim from Rs. 24,77,O001- to Rs. 35,00,0001 for which the petitioners shall pay the Court Fee on the enhanced claim in the Lower Court after disposal of the Appeal Counsel for the Appellant in MACMA and for the Respondent No.2 in Cross Objection No.21 ol 2024: Sri V. Sambasiva Rao Counsel for the Respondents 't to 4 in MACMA and for Cross Objectors in Cross Objection No. 21 ot 2024 Counsel for the Respondent No. 5 in MACMA and for the Respondent No. 1 in Cross Objection No. 21 of 2024 The Court delivered the following JUDGMENT: : Sri P. Ramakrishna Reddy : None Appeared I THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.No.5 of 2O24 AND CROSS-OBJECTIONS No.2l of 2o24 COMMON JUDGMENT:

1. Aggrieved by thc order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribuna[- c um - I LAdd i tiona l Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in M.V.O.P.No. 1773 of 2016 dated 17.O3.2O23, M.A.C.M.A.No.5 of 2024 is f-rled by the Insurance Company/Respondent No.2 in O.P. seeking to allow the Appeal by setting aside the order of the learned Tribunal. Being Dissatiehed with the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, the claim petitioners in the said M.V.O.P. filed Cross Objeciions No.21 of 2024 seeking enhancement of compensation. Since both the cases are filed challenging the same impugned judgment, hence they are dealt with together and being disposed of by way of this common judgment.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioners, who are the wife and children ol Late R.Jagulu @ Jagan (hereinafter referred as the deceased') hled a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 against the respondent Nos.1 & 2 2 claiming compensation of Rs.2O,00,0OO/- along with interest @ 24o/o per annum on account of the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 27.O5.2O12. It is stated by the petitioners that on 27.05.2012, at about 9.00 P.M, when the deceased was riding Kinetic Honda Scooter bearing No.AP-24AP- 1159 along with Uppalaiah as pillion rider and were proceeding slowly from Veerareddypally lowards Mulkalapally side on the extreme left side of the road and when reached outskirts of Vasalamarri Village, Thurkapally Mandal, Nalgonda District, at that time, one Tractor and Trailer bearing No.AP-28tJ-776I which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed which was proceeding from Vasalamarri towards Thurkapally side, dashed the scooter of the deceased, due to which, the deceased and pillion rider fell down from the scooter, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot and the pillion rider sustained injuries.

4. Based on a complaint, Police of Thurkapally Police Station, Nalgonda District, registered a case in Crime No.34 of 2012 under Sections 3O4-A ald 337 of IPC. It is further stated by the petitioners that the deceased was hale and healthy, aged about 4O years at the time of accident and used to earn Rs.25,0O0/- per month by doing lirewood business and contribute the said earnings to the beneht of his family members. Due to sudden death of the deceased, they lost their support and became destitute. As such, they liled a petition seeking compensation of Rs.20,0O,000/- along with interest @ 24o/o per annum against the respondent Nos. I & 2, wlno are the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle i.e., Tractoi and Trailer bearing No.AP-28U-776O and AP- 28U-776r.

5. Respondent No. l/owner of the crime Tractor remained ex- parte. Respondent No.2/lnsurance Company filed its counter denying the material allegations made in the claim petition including, occurrence of accident, death of the deceased in the said accident, involvement of Tractor and Trailer, age, occupation and income ofthe deceased and contended that respondent No.1 do not possess valid driving license at the time of accident.

6. It is further contended by respondent No.2/Insurance Company in its additional counter that as per FIR and charge sheet, the registration numbers of crime vehicles i.e., Tractor and Trailer were mentioned as AP-28U-4761 and AP-2aU-476O by showing the name of the accused as Singam Madhusudhan S/o.Bhujangam, but, as per the complaint given to SI of Police, Thurkapally, by one Mr.Ramavath Shankar, the Tractor and Trailer registration numbers were mentioned as AP-28U -7760 and AP- 4 28U-7761 respectively. It is further contended by respondent No'2 that their company did not issue any policy to Tractor and Trailer bearing Nos.AP-28U-4761 and AP-28U - 47 60. As such, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners' It is also contcnded that as respondent No. 1 did not possess any valid and effective driving license to drive the crime Tractor and Trailer and violated the provisions of M.V.Act, as such, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners and hence prayed to dismiss the claim against it.

7. Based on the above pleadings, the learnecl Tribunal had framed tlre lollowing lSSt]CS along with additional issues for conducting trial:- Whether the death of the deceased-R.Jagulu @ Jagan uas due to rash and negligent diuing of the Tractor and Trailer beaing No.AP-2811-776O and AP-28U-7761, diuen bg its diuer? WhettLer the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what extent and against u.thom? iii. To uhat relief Ll. Ad,Titional issues.'- Whether the death of the deceased Ramauath Jagan S/ o. BichAa utas due to the rash and negligent diuing of the diuer of Tractor beaing No.AP-2BU-4761 as mentioned in the FIR in Crime No.34/2O12 dated 27.05.2012 of P.S.Thurkapally and also in 5 CC.No.794/ 2012 on the file of AJFCM, Bhongir? Or due o the rash or negligent driuing of diuer of Tractor bearing No.AP-28U-7760 and Trailer No.AP-28U-7761 as mentioned in the complaint dated 27.05.2012 giuen by tLre brotlter of the deceased namelg R. Shanker? ii. To uhnt relieJ?

8. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs I to 3 were examined and Exs.Al to Al2 were marked. On behall of Respondent No.2/Insurance Company, RWs I & 2 were examined and Exs.Bl to 84 were marked. 9 . Upon considering the evidence and documents marked on both sides, the learned Tribunal had allowed the claim petition of the petitioners by awarding compensation ol Rs.24,77 ,O00/- along with interest @ 6oh per annum payable by Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.2 in O.P./lnsurance Company filed M.A.C.M.A.No.5 of 2024 and the claim petitioners Iiled Cross Objections No.21 of 2024.

10. Heard arguments of Sri V.sambasiva Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Appellant/lnsurance Company in M.A.C.M,A.5 of 2024 as weli as Sri P. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos. I to 4 lclaim petitioners/ C ross-Objectors.

11. The contentions of the learned Standing Counsel for Appellant/ Insurance Company as me ntioned in the grounds of 6 Appeal are that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding abnormal amounts rrnder various heads and awarded huge compensation. It also contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of RWl, who deposed in her evidence that the owner of the Tractor and Trailer was having valid driving license to drive LMV transport vehicle but not the subject Tractor and Trailer and that the registratior-r numbers of crime Tractor and Trailer were quite different lrom FIR and charge sheet and hence prayed to allow the Appeal by setting aside the order of the learned Tribunal.

12. Per contra, the contention of the learned counsel for the responden ts/ cross-objectors is that the learned .Tribunal granted meager amount towards compensation and had wrongly taken the income of the deceased on lower side and hence prayed to allow the cross-objection petition by enhancing the compensation.

13. Now' the points that emerge for consideration is, (i) Wether the order passed by the learned Triburrul requires in terference of this Court? (ii) Wltether tl.Le cross-objectors are entitled for enhancement of com.pensation? Points- 14. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents filed by both sides. Petitioner No. 1, wife of the deceased, was examined as PWl. She reiterated the contents made in the claim 7 petition. As she is not an eye witness, she got examined pWs 2 & 3 as eye '{/itnesses to the accident.

15. PW2-injured pillion rider-cum-eye witness to the incident deposed in his evidence that on 2Z.OS.2O12 at 9.O0 p.M., when the deceased was driving the scooter slowly on the extreme left side of the road accompanying him as a pillion rider and when they reached the outskirts of Vasalamarri Village, at that time, the Tractor and Trailer bearing No.Ap-28U-7760 and Ap_2gU-ZZ6l driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, came from behind and dashed the Kinetic Honda of the deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot and the Kinetic Honda was completely damaged. He further deposed that the said accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tractor and Trailer bearing Nos.AP-28U-77 60 ad AP -28U -T Z 61.

16. PW3- an eye witness to the incident, also deposed in his evidence that the alleged accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tractor ad Trailer bearing Nos.Ap- 28U -77 60 and AP-28U -7 7 6 t.

17. Though PWsl to 3 were cross-examined at length, nothing worthwhile was elicited from them to disbelieve their evidence. I 8

18. On behalf of Insurance Company/respondent No.2 in O.P., RWs 1 & 2 were examined. RWl, Assistant Manager of United India Insurance Company Limited, deposed in her evidence that as per records, their Company had not issued any policy for the Tractor and Trailer bearing Nos.AP-2BU-4767 and AP-28U -4760 as shown in FIR and charge sheet. She further submits that respondent No.1 possess driving license to drive transport vehicle only and not the subject Tractor and Trailer.

19. During her cross-examination, she admitted that as per Ex.A3-inquest report, the registration number of crime Tractor and Trailer is mentioned as AP-28U-7760 and AP-28U-2761. She also admitted that the alleged accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime tractor and trailer. She also admitted that the unladen weight of LMV category vehicle will not be more than 7,50O Kgs.

20. In this regard, it is also pertinent to refer to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case between Mutund Deuangan us Oriental Ins.Co.Ltdi wherein, the Hon'bie Supreme Court held that the Tractor and Trailer is a light motor vehicle and a person possessing driving license to drive light motor vehicle is also entitled to <lrive Tractor and Trailer. It is also pertinent to refer to ,._' 2ol7 ACJ 20l I (sc) 9 the circular Memo No. 1963/R/2Ot8, dated 24.O4.2018 issued by the Transport Commissioner, Hyderabad, wherein, it is clarified that Light Motor Vehicle includes transport vehicle upto 7500 Kgs and no separate endorsement on the license is required to drive the transport vehicle of light motor vehicle classes. There is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive the transport vehicle if the driver is holding license to drive the light motor vehicle, he can drive the transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect.

21. In view of the above judgment and as per circular instructions issued by Transport Commissioner, the Respondent No. 1/owner of the subject Tractor and Trailer, who possess driving license to drive LMV non-transport vehicle is also entitled to drive the subject Tractor and Trailer. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for appellant/ Insurance Company that the owner of the Tractor and Trailer is having valid driving license only to drive LMV transport vehicle and not the subject Tractor, is unsustainable.

22. As far as documentary evidence is concerned, Ex.A 1_FIR shows that Police of Thurkapalli police Station registered a case in Crime No.34 of 2Ol2 under Sections 3O4A and 337 of IpC, conAucted investigation and laid charge sheet under Ex.A2 against 10 Singam Madhusudhan, Driver of Tractor bearing No.AP-28U-4761. Ex.A3 is the inquest report. Ex.A4- Post mortem examination report shows that the cause of death of the deceased was due to RTA Asphyxia due to Neck Injury. Ex.AS is the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report which shows that the accident had not occurred due to any mechanical defects in the vehicle. Ex.A6 are the statements of LWs 1 to 9. Ex.A7 is the requisition letter sent to MVI, Bhongir, for inspection of crime Tractor and Trailer. Ex.AS is the acknowledgment for receiving the vehicle from Police Station. Ex.A9 is the RC of Tractor bearing No.AP-28U-776O which ii in the ownership of respondent No. 1. Ex.AlO is the RC.of Trailer bearing No.AP-28U-776 I which is in the ownership of respondent No. 1. Ex.Al1 is the RC of Bajaj Auto Rickshaw bearing No.AP-28U-4760 which is in thc ownership of Jameel Mohammed. Ex.A12 RC of the Tractor bearirrg No.AP-28U-4761 , which is in the ownership of Ramulu. trx.Bl is the Insurance policy of the Tractor and Trailer bearing Nos.AP-28U-776O and AP-28U-7761 respectively. Ex.B2 is the Driving license of respondent No. I issued by RTA, Secunderabad. Ex.B3 is the authorization letter issued by RTO, Secunderabad. Ex.E}4 is the Driving license extract of respondent No.1. 11

23. Therefore, from the above oral and documentary evidence, it can be concluded that the death of the deceased was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime Tractor and Trailer. Further, it is evident from Exs.A9 & A10 that the subject Tractor anil Trailer were in the name of S.Madhusudhan/owner of the crime Tractor and Trailer and the policy was in force as on the date of accident.

24. The other contention of the learned counsel for Appellant/ Insurance Company is that there is dilference in mentioning the registration number of crime Tractor and tralter in Ex.A2-charge sheet when compared to Exs.A1, A3 to A8.

25. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the evidence of PWsl to 3, who categorically deposed that the number of Tractor and Trailer involved in the accident is AP-28U-776O and AP-28U-7761. Further, RW I admitted in her cross-examination that the registration number of crime vehicle in Exs.Al, 43 to A8 is referred as AP-28U-776O and AP-28U-7761. Further Exs.A9 & A10- RC of Tractor and Trailer were in the name of respondent No.1/Owner of the crime vehicle. Therefore, from the above, it is clear that the Tractor and Trailer bearing registration No.AP-28U-7760 and AP- 2aU-7761 was involved in the accident and respondent Nos.1 & 2 are the owner and insurer of the said crime Tractor and Trailer. t 12

26. The next contention of the appellant/Insurance Company is with regard to quantum of compensation. Learnecl counsel for the appellant/ Insurance Company contended that the learned Tribunal erred in granting abnormal amounts towards compensa tion.

27. On the other hand, learned counsel for the cross- objectors/ claimants contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have taken income of the deceased on higher side and ought to have granted more compensation and also ought to have granted more inte r est

28. A perusal of quantum of compensation awarded in the impugned judgment shows that the learned Tribunal, upon considering the age and occupation of the deceased, fixed the income of the deceased @ Rs. 12,OO0/- per month and calculated compensat ion as under:- Sl.No Name of the Head Amount awarded by Tribunal 1 2 3 4 Monthl lncome Rs.12,000/- Addition of future prospects @ 4Oo/o Rs. 16,800 to monthl l ncom(] I Deduction rsonal ex NSES I l4t towards Rs. 12,600 Annual income comes to Rs.1 51,200 l I 13 6 7 8 9 I Applying multiplier 15 Rs.22,68,O0O/- Loss of spouse consortium Rs.44,000/- Loss of parental consortium Rs.1,32,O00/- Funeral expenses Loss of estate TOTAI- Rs. 16,500/ - Rs. 16,50O/- Rs.24,77,OOOl- I I I I I

29. As far as income of the deceased is concerned, though it is contended by the claim petitioners that the deceased was a Maison Mestry and also used to do hrewood business and earn a sum of Rs.25,OO0/- per month, but there is no documentary proof liled to that effect. Hence, thc learned Tribunal having considered the age and occupation of the deceased, fixed his monthly earnings @ Rs. 12,000/ - per month which this Court finds to be reasonable and is not inclined to interfere with the same. As the deceased was aged 40 years at the time of accident, this Court, by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Irsurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others2, is inclined to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal in this regard and hereby add 257o towards future prospects instead of 4Ooh and calculate the compensation as under :- '2ofi acJ zz oo 14 Sl.No Name of the Head Monthl Income Addition of future prospects @ 25o/o to monthly income Amount awarded by Tribunal Rs.12,O0O/- Rs.15,o0O/- N('t monthly income aftcr deduction of1 4th towards rsonal ex CNSCS Rs.11,250/- Arnual income comes to Rs.1 rl 5,000 I I Applying multiplier 15, the loss of de endenc comes to Rs.2O,25,00O/- ConventionaI Heads ..---- krss of Parental consortium TOTAL Rs.77,OO0 Rs.1 20,000 Rs.22,22,OOO / I 1 2 .1. 4 6 I 7 8

30. It is also pertinent to mention that the learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.44,000/- towards spousal consortium, Rs.1,32,OOO/- towards parental consortium and Rs.16,5O0/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate. This Court finds the said amounts to be on higher side and is inclined to interfere with the same by relying upon the Judgment of the Honble Apex Court in the case of National Insttrance Co. Ltd. Vs.Pranag Sethl & others (2017 ACJ 27OO) and hereby award a sum of Rs.77,0OO/- towards conventional heads i.e. loss of estate, Ioss of consortium and funeral expenses and Rs.4O,0OO/- each under the head of I parental consortium as per the decision of the Apex Court in 15 Magma Generq.l Insurance Compang Limited v. No.nu Ro'm @ Chuhru Ram and otherss, Thus, in a1l, the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.22,22,OOO/-.

31. So far as rate of interest is concerned, this Court, by relying upon the decision of the Hon'bie Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 4, enhances the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal from 6%o per annum to 7.5o/o per annum.

32. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.5 oI 2024 fiied by the appellant/ Insurance Company is partly-a1lowed reducing 'the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal from Rs.24,77,OOOl- to RI.22,22,OOO l- and the X-Objections petition frled by the claimants is partly-allowed enhancing the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal from 60/o to 7.5o/o per annum. SdI-V. HARI PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, VWDL

1. The Motor Vehicles Accidents CIaims Tribunal-Cum-ll Additional Chief Judge, Citv Civil Court at Hvderabad.(with records, if any) 2. On'e CC to Sri V. Sa-mbasiva Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri P. Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies l HIGH COTJRT DATED: 1010112025 COMMON JUDGMENT+ COMMON DECREE MACMA.No.S of 2024 AND CROSS-OBJ No. 21 of 2024 viE str,r t.: 1 0r f, c o tl ttB M \u,"\ * 5:ir11 o .L .\' PARTLY ALLOWING BOTH MACMA.No.5 of 2024 AND CROSS-OBJ No. 21 ot 2024 Io I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI MACMA NO: 5 OF 2024 AND CROSS-OBJECTIONS No. 2't ot 2024 Between: United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Regional Manager, TP Department 2nd Floor, Posnett Bhavan, titak fioaO, Ram"koti, Hyderab"ad, vide policy No. 050302131111102/03009490, dated 08.09.2011 to 07.09. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No. 2 AND

1. R. Bhuli W/o Late Jagulu @ Jagan, Aged 35 years, Occ: Household 2. R. Saritha, D/o Late Jagulu @ Jagan, Aged 16 years, Occ: Student. 3. R. Swapna, D/o Late Jagulu @ Jagan, Aged 15 years, Occ: Student 4. R. Supriya, D/o Late Jagulu @ Jagan, Aged 1 1 years, Occ Student. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are being minors, represented by their Mother and guardian i.e., respondent No, t herein All are R/O Kimya Thanda, Mulkalapally village, Thurkapatly ft/andat, Nalgonda District. Presently resident of SF-43, Lambadi Basthi, Baghlingampally, Hyderabad

5. S. Madhusudhan, S/o Bhujangam, Aged Major, Occ Business, Rl/o H.No.2-8, Laxmi Nagar, Shamirpet, Rangareddy District, Owner-cum-Driver of the Tractor bearing No. AP-28-U-7760 and Trailer bearing No. AP-28-U-7761 ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT No. 1 Appeal filed under aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 17.03.2023 in M.V.O.P. No. 1773 of 2016 on the file of Court of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-ll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. CROSS-OBJETITIONS No. 21 of 2024 Between:

2. 2

4. R- Bhuli W/o Late Jagulu @ Jagan, Aged 42 years, Occ: Household. R. Saritha. D/o Late Jaoutu @ Jagan, Aged 23 years, (Declared Major. Vide lA.No 96 or2024. Dt 0501.2-6216vtre[owe-r-ctG]l '- R. Swaona. D/o Late Jaouhr @^Jagan, Aged 22 years, (Declared Major. Vide t- lA No s6 of 2024, Dt. oi.o1 2024 U"V fti" rt-*er-C6urtj' R. Supriya, D/oLate Jagulu @ Jagan, Aged 18 years, Occ Student. (Petitioner No 4 minor rep. by her Mother and guardian, the petitioner No. 1 herein ) . are Residents Kimya Thanda, Mulkalapally vi age, Thurkapally Mandal, All Nalgonda District. AND ...CROSS OBJECTORS

1. S. Madhusudhan, S/o Bhujangam, Aged Major, Occ Business, R/o Fl.No. 2_g. Laxmi Nagar, Shamirpet, Rangaredd/ Distriit_soo1O1 (owner-cum-Driver of the Tractor bearing No. Ap-2gu-7760 and rrairer bearing No. AP-2BU-1161)

2. The United lndia lnsurance Company Limited Rep. bv its Reoional l\rlanaoer TP Department2d Ftoor, posneit e6avin, rirar, ftoat, niil,ioi'.'iiJffi;#"7\. presenUy R/o 9"'Ftoor, 3_5_917 & g1g, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad_50'0029. (Policv No. oso3o2r31 r 1 1 r 02100009490 varid from 08-09-20 1 1 to 07 -09-2o1 2) ..,REPONDENTS Memorandum of cross objections fired under order XLr Rure 22 of cpc against the order and Decree dated 17 .o3.2o23 made in MVop. No. 1173 ol 20.16 on the file of the court of the Motor Vehicres Accidents craims Tribunar-cum-[ Additional Chief "rudge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. This appeal and Cross Objections coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appear and cross objections the Judgment and Decree of the Lower court and the materiar papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of sri V. Sambasiva Rao. Advocate for the Appeflant in MACMA and for the Respondent No.2 in cross objection No. 21 of 2024, sri p. Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate for the Respondents 1 to 4 in MACMA and for cross objectors in cross objection No. 21 of 2o24 and None Appeared, for the Respondent No. s in MACMA and for the I 7 Respondent No 1 in Cross Objection No. 21 of 2024 either in person or by Advocate. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident civir Miscelaneous Appear No. 5 of 2024 fired by the appellanUlnsurance Company be and hereby is parfly allowed reducing the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal from Rs. 24,17 ,OOO:_ to Rs. 22,22,OjOt-;

2. That the cross objections petition fired by the craimants be and hereby is partly allowed enhancing the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunar form 60 to 7 .syo per annum; and

3. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/. V. HARI PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ION OFFICER The Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-ll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hvderabad. Two CD Copies To, VH 1 2 ! HIGH COURT DATED: 1010112025 COMMON DECREE MACMA.No.S of 2024 AND CROSS-OBJ No. 21 of 2024 PARTLY ALLOWING BOTH MACMA.N o.5 of 2024 AND CROSS-OBJ No. 21 of 2024 9 T{ \