IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI
****
M.A.C.M.A.No. 584 of 2006
Between:
1. Karri Sujatha,
W/o.Nagireddy, aged 38 years,
House wife, R/o.Polamuru Village,
Anaparthy Mandal, E.G. District.
2. Karri Venkata Reddy,
S/o.Late Nagi Reddy, 21 years,
R/o.Polamuru Village,
Anaparthy Mandal, E.G. District.
3. Karri Surekha,
D/o. late Nagi Reddy, 15 years,
Student, R/o. Polamuru Village,
Anaparthy, E.G. District.
(Appellant No.3 is a minor represented by its next friend and mother
first appellant) ... Appellants
And
1. M.A.Srinivasa Rao,
S/o.Satyanarayana, 34 years,
H.No.13-88, Hukumpeta,
Rajahmundry, E.G. District.
2. United India Insurance Company,
Represented by Brnach Manager,
Divisional Office, Sri Complex,
Main Road, Kakinada. ... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 20.12.2022
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters / Journals? Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wish to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes
DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
+ M.A.C.M.A.No.584 of 2006
% 20.12.2022
Between:
1. Karri Sujatha,
W/o.Nagireddy, aged 38 years,
House wife, R/o.Polamuru Village,
Anaparthy Mandal, E.G. District.
2. Karri Venkata Reddy,
S/o.Late Nagi Reddy, 21 years,
R/o.Polamuru Village,
Anaparthy Mandal, E.G. District.
3. Karri Surekha,
D/o. late Nagi Reddy, 15 years,
Student, R/o. Polamuru Village,
Anaparthy, E.G. District.
(Appellant No.3 is a minor represented by its next friend and mother
first appellant)
... Appellants
And
1. M.A.Srinivasa Rao,
S/o.Satyanarayana, 34 years,
H.No.13-88, Hukumpeta,
Rajahmundry, E.G. District.
2. United India Insurance Company,
Represented by Brnach Manager,
Divisional Office, Sri Complex,
Main Road, Kakinada. ... Respondents
! Counsel for Appellants : Sri A.K.Kishore Reddy and
Sri Siva Bhami Reddy S
^ Counsel for Respondents : Sri A.V.K.S.Prakash
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
(2020) 11 SCC 356
2017 ACJ 2700 (SC)
2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)
2018 ACJ 2782 (SC)
(2003) 2 SCC 274
This Court made the following:
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
M.A.C.M.A.No.584 of 2006
JUDGMENT:
This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") challenging the Judgment and Award, dated 02.12.2005, delivered by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry, (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), in O.P.No.834 of 2002, whereby, the claimants have been awarded the compensation of Rs.2,91,539.50 ps., holding that all the opponents are jointly and severally liable to pay the same with running interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, with proportionate costs of the petition.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal in the claim petition.
3. The factual context of the case is as under:
(a) A 37 years old K.Nagireddy, was a Railway Constable, Kakinada Railway Outpost. At the time of his death, the 4 deceased was drawing a monthly gross salary of Rs.6,111/-. On 28.04.2002 at about 4.15 p.m., the deceased namely, Nagireddy, left his house on his Hero Honda motorcycle from Kakinada in order to go to his native place. When he reached Anaparthi main centre, at that time, the 1st respondent, who is the driver- cum-owner of the scooter bearing No.AP 5 C 8179, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit the Hero Honda motorcycle, as a result, the deceased fell down and sustained head injury. Immediately he was shifted to Gangireddy Nursing Home, Anaparthi for giving him first-aid and from there he was shifted to Alert Hospital, Rajahmundry, for better treatment. While undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries on 29.04.2002. The matter was reported to the Police alleging that the accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (scooter) bearing No.AP 5 C 8179 by the 1st respondent and based on the FIR lodged by one Brahmananda Reddy, a case in Crime No.40 of 2002 was registered. After investigation of the same, a charge sheet was submitted against the accused driver (1st respondent) for having committed the offence under Section 304-A IPC.
(b) The wife of the deceased, his two minor children i.e., a son and a daughter filed an application claiming compensation of a 5 sum of Rs.10,00,000/- before the Tribunal at Rajahmundry on account of his death in the said road traffic accident.
(c) Before the Tribunal, the 1st Respondent/driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle (scooter) bearing No.AP 5 C 8179 filed a counter denying the material allegations in the petition and it was pleaded that, at the time of the accident, he was at Hukumpeta Village and he was not at Anaparthi and that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive and the offending vehicle (scooter) is having valid insurance policy.
(d) The 2nd respondent/Insurer filed a counter contending inter alia that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive and exorbitant.
(e) In view of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
(1) Whether the deceased Karri Nagireddy died in motor accident occurred on 28.04.2022 at about 4.15 p.m., near Anaparthi Eye Hospital due to the rash and negligent driving of scooter bearing No.AP 5C 8179 by the 1st respondent?
(2) Whether the petitioners being the dependants of the deceased Karri Nagireddy, are entitled to the compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest thereon from all the respondents with joint and several liability?
(3) To what relief?
(f) During the trial, in order to establish their claim, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1, one Sathi 6 Raghuramareddy, who was the eyewitness to the accident, was examined as P.W.2, and M.Vijaya Bhaskar, who was working as an Attender in the offence of Superintendent of Police, Railways was examined as P.W.3 and Exs.A.1 to A.15, Ex.X.1 were got marked on behalf of the petitioners. The 1st respondent was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.B.1 to B.3 were got marked on behalf of the 1st respondent. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company before the Tribunal.
(g) On appreciation of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, and placing reliance on Exs.A.1 to A.15, X.1 and Exs.B.1 to B.3, the learned Tribunal came to a conclusion that the manner of accident undoubtedly indicates that the 1st respondent alone cannot be blamed for the accident and he contributed negligence for the accident to the extent of 50% only. The learned Tribunal passed the impugned award granting compensation of Rs.2,91,539.50 ps., with interest @ 7.5% per annum payable by the 1 st and 2nd respondents jointly and severally with proportionate costs. The following compensation was awarded by the Tribunal applying the multiplier '14'.
7
S.No. Heads of compensation Amount of compensation awarded
1 Pecuniary compensation Rs.5,56,192/- was awarded
as mentioned in the towards pecuniary compensation to
award Rs.39,728 x 14.00 the petitioners
= Rs.5,56,192/-
2 Pecuniary compensation Rs.15,000/- On all other heads
of Rs.15,000/- including loss of consortium
3 Medical Expenses Rs.11,887/-
Total Rs.5,83,079/-
Out of which the learned Tribunal
fixed the liability of the respondents
1 and 2 in 50% which comes to
Rs.2,91,539.50 ps.
4 The learned Tribunal Rs.21,539/-
awarded compensation But the learned Tribunal not
without any head included this amount in the result
portion. However, the total amount
awarded by the learned Tribunal is
Rs.3,13,078.50 ps.
Note: The learned Tribunal allowed the petition partly granting compensation of Rs.2,91,539.50 ps.
(h) Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said award, the claimants, being appellants preferred the present appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit that the Tribunal ought to have awarded higher compensation. It was submitted that the income of the deceased was taken at a lower side, which ultimately resulted in granting lesser compensation. It was further argued that the compensation under various conventional heads was also not granted, resulting in prejudice to the case of the appellants. He would further submit that the 1st and 2nd respondents filed their respective counters, but they did not take any plea that both the 8 vehicles were head in collision and did not take a plea contributory negligence on the part of the deceased-Nagireddy. In the absence of such plea, the learned Claims Tribunal committed an error in holding that the 1 st respondent alone cannot be blamed for the accident and that he contributed the negligence for the accident to the extent of 50% only. Partly rejecting the claim of the appellants, the Tribunal passed the award which is erroneous and contrary to the settled principles of law. He would submit that the learned Tribunal committed an error in determining the compensation and the claimants are entitled to enhance the amount of compensation on account of future prospects, love and affection, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses etc., by following the judgment of Pranay Sethi case.
5. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company would submit that, on proper appreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal had rightly awarded a just and fair compensation to the appellants. He would further submit that the figures/multiplier applied by the Tribunal and the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal were justified, which called for no interference in the appeal. 9
6. In the light of the above rival arguments, the points for determination in this appeal are:
"1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable, in the facts and circumstances of the case, or requires enhancement?
2. Whether the claimants are entitled to claim compensation under various conventional heads and made out a case for enhancement of the amount of compensation?"
7. POINT Nos.1 & 2: A perusal of the impugned judgment would show that the Tribunal has framed Issue No.1 as to whether the deceased died in a motor accident occurred on 28.04.2002 due to the rash and negligent driving of the scooter bearing No.AP 5C 8179 by the 1st respondent, to which the Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence had observed that it is a case of head in collision between two vehicles and it is no doubt true that the 1 st and 2nd respondents did not plead the contributory negligence of the deceased. But, irrespective of the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, the negligence on the part of the 1 st respondent has to be assessed when two vehicles were going on a public road in opposite direction. The learned Tribunal further held that the manner of the accident undoubtedly indicates that the 1st respondent alone cannot be blamed for the accident and that he 10 contributed the negligence for the accident to the extent of 50% only.
8. It is relevant to refer to the evidence and other material documents. Undisputedly the 1st and 2nd respondents filed their respective counters. They have not pleaded the contributory negligence and denied the claim of the petitioners. Except that, they have pleaded that the compensation claimed by claimants is excessive and exorbitant. In Ex.A.1/Certified copy of the F.I.R, there was no averment about the head in collision of both the vehicles in causing the accident. In Ex.A.3/Certified copy of the Inquest Report at Column No.15, it was mentioned that the 1st respondent came in a scooter in a rash and negligent manner and hit the rider of the Hero Honda motorcycle due to which the deceased fell down and sustained severe injuries. Apart from the documentary evidence, the 1st respondent was examined as R.W.1. He never deposed about the contributory negligence of the deceased in causing the accident. There was no oral or documentary evidence on behalf of the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company and no suggestion was put to the witnesses that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased to cause the accident. In the absence of the above evidence, the learned Tribunal at Paragraph 7 of the judgment, erroneously came to a 11 conclusion and had observed that the 1st respondent alone cannot be blamed for the accident and the 1st respondent contributed the negligence for the accident to the extent of 50% only.
9. It shows that the learned Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the contributory negligence of the deceased is to the extent of 50% only. This Court meticulously perused the counters, but unfortunately does not find any pleading therein to the effect that the deceased contributed his negligence resulting in to cause the accident, which led to his death. This Court further found that the evidence of the eyewitness i.e., P.W.2 is unchallenged making the position clear that the 1 st respondent drove the scooter bearing No.AP 5C 8179 in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased and took away the life of the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal erroneously came to the conclusion that the deceased contributed negligence for the accident to the extent of 50%, which is without any merit. Therefore, the 1st respondent alone is responsible for the accident and due to his rash and negligent driving of the scooter bearing No.AP 5C 8179, the accident occurred and it cannot be said that in the absence of any evidence to show that the wrongful act on the part of the deceased victim contributed 12 either to the accident or to the nature of the injuries sustained, the victim could not have been held guilty of contributory negligence. P.W.2 stated that while he was talking with Venkat Reddy, he observed that the 1st respondent drove his Bajaj Chetak scooter in a rash and negligent manner coming from Dwarapudi and dashed the motor cycle of the deceased due to which the husband of the 1st petitioner fell down and sustained head injury and nothing was elicited during the cross- examination even no suggestion was put that the accident had taken place that the deceased contributed negligent to cause the accident. In this case, there is no negligence which can be attributed to the deceased, due to which the accident had taken place. Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal is not binding on them and there is no question of contributory negligence. Hence, the reduction of 50% towards contributory negligence is clearly unjustified and the same has to be set aside.
10. The Tribunal, while assessing the compensation payable to the claimants, took into consideration the Last Pay Certificate- Ex.X1 of the deceased, which shows that the gross monthly salary last drawn by the deceased was Rs.6,111/-. He was a salaried employee, worked as Police Constable at Kakinada in 13 Railway Outpost and he was between the age of 36 to 40 years. As can be seen from Ex.A.3/Inquest Report and Ex.A.4/Postmortem Certificate, the deceased was aged about 37 years at the time of the accident. Ex.A.15 is the pay particulars of the deceased for the month of March, 2002, which shows that the deceased was drawing a gross salary of Rs.6,111/- per month. The annual income of the deceased would be Rs.73,332/-. An addition of 50% of his actual salary is added towards future prospects for assessment of his income as per the guidelines laid down in Pranay Sethi's case and the said 50% of the actual salary is worked out at Rs.36,666/-. The learned Tribunal had committed an error by taking the net salary of the deceased without taking the gross salary.
11. In a decision reported in National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Birender1 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India at Para 19 held as follows:
"19. Reverting to the determination of compensation amount, it is noticed that the Tribunal proceeded to determine the compensation amount on the basis of net salary drawn by the deceased for the relevant period as Rs.16,918/ per month, while taking note of the fact that her gross salary was Rs.23,123/ per month (presumably below taxable income). Concededly, any deduction from the gross salary other than tax amount cannot be reckoned. In that, the actual salary less tax amount ought to have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal for determining the compensation amount, 1 (2020) 11 SCC 356 14 in light of the dictum of the Constitution Bench of this Court in paragraph 59.3 of Pranay Sethi (supra)."
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon the decision of National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi2, wherein at Para 59.3, it was held as follows:
"While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax."
13. Undisputedly, the deceased was a Constable at the time of his death. He had a permanent job. He was between the age of 36 to 40 years. Therefore, 50% of his actual income has to be added towards future prospects for determination of his income, pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (vide Paragraph 59.3) cited supra.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation3, in Para 9 held as follows:
9. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death: (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and the (c) the number of dependents. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the 2 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) 3 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 15 loss of dependency are (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference of the age of the deceased. If these determinants are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay.
15. The Tribunal committed an error in making the deductions for personal and living expenses of the deceased. Evidently, the deceased was survived by his wife and two children (son and daughter). Therefore, number of his dependent family members was '3'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra) has held that the deduction towards personal and living expenses should be 1/3rd. Observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court Sarla Verma's case (supra), is as under.
"14. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six."16
16. As such, 1/3rd of his income for personal and living expenses has to be deducted, since the number of dependent family members was '3'. The loss of dependency is thus re-assessed as under.
17. The monthly income as per his Last Pay Certificate/Ex.X.1 and Ex.A.15/Pay particulars is Rs.6,111/-. Thus, the annual income would be Rs.73,332/-. 50% towards future prospects for assessment of his income would be Rs.36,666/-. After adding the same, the income of the deceased as per the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), it would be Rs.1,09,998/- (Rs.73,332 + Rs.36,666).
18. After deducting 1/3rd of the said amount for personal and living expenses of the deceased, his annual income would be Rs.73,332/- (Rs.1,09,998 - Rs.36,666) and as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma (supra) the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column No.4 of the table which starts an operative multiplier of '18' ( for the age group of M-15 for 36 to 40 years). Since the age of the deceased is 37 years at the time of accident, the multiplier applicable is '15'. Having applied the said multiplier, loss of dependency would be Rs.73,332 x 15 = Rs.10,99,980/-. Therefore, the petitioners are 17 entitled to a sum of Rs.10,99,980/- under the head of Loss of dependency.
19. In Pranay Sethi's case (supra), the Constitution Bench held in death cases that the compensation would be awarded only under three conventional heads, viz., loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. Loss of Estate:
20. This Court is of the view to award a sum of Rs.15,000/- under the said head of loss of estate, as per Pranay Sethi's case (supra).
Funeral Expenses:
21. This Court is of the view to award a sum of Rs.15,000/- under the said head of funeral expenses, as per Pranay Sethi's case (supra).
Loss of Consortium:
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India explained the concept of consortium in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others,4 and held that the consortium is a compendious term, which encompasses "spousal consortium", "parental consortium", as well as "filial 4 2018 ACJ 2782 (SC) 18 consortium". Observation of the Court in Paragraphs 21, 22 and 23 is as follows:
"21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is loss of consortium. In legal parlance, "consortium" is a compendious term which encompasses "spousal consortium", "parental consortium", and "filial consortium". The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse.
21.1 Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of "company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation."
21.2 Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, MAC.App 77/2019 for loss of "parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training." 21.3 Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit.
22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognized that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a 19 compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.
23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of filial consortium. Parental consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of filial consortium."
23. In pursuance to the above decision in Nanu Ram's case (supra), each of the two children of the deceased i.e., appellants 2 and 3 are entitled to the parental consortium @ Rs.40,000/- each for loss of parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training, instead of compensation under the head of 'loss of love and affection'. The 1st appellant, being is wife, also entitled to consortium of Rs.40,000/-. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the appellants 1 to 3 are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of consortium.
24. In Sarla Verma's case (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court, while elaborating the concept of 'just compensation' observed as under:
"Just compensation is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and 20 circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit."
25. In view of the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments cited supra and the calculations made above, the compensation payable to the appellants/claimants, is re-assessed as under.
S.No. Heads of Compensation Amount of
compensation awarded
1. Loss of Dependency ...... Rs. 10,99,980.00
2. Loss of Estate ...... Rs. 15,000.00
3. Funeral Expenses ...... Rs. 15,000.00
4. Loss of Consortium
To wife and two
Children of the
Deceased (40,000 x 3) ...... Rs. 1,20,000.00
---------------------
Total ...... Rs.12,49,980.00
(-) Compensation awarded
By the Tribunal ..... Rs. 2,91,539.50
---------------------
Enhanced amount ...... Rs. 9,58,440.50
---------------------
26. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and others5, under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only upto the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case, where from the evidence brought on record, if Tribunal- 5
(2003) 2 SCC 274 21 Court considers that claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such an award. There is no embargo to award compensation more than that claimed by the claimant. Rather it is obligatory for the Tribunal and Court to award "just compensation", even if it is in the excess of the amount claimed. The Tribunals are expected to make an award by determining the amount of compensation that should appear to be just and proper. The compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, against the background of the facts and circumstances of the case, is not just and reasonable, and the claimants are entitled to more compensation, as per the decisions cited supra, though they might not have claimed the same at the time of filing of the claim petition.
27. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, this court is of the opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal warrants interference by enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,91,539.50 to Rs.12,49,980/-.
28. In the result, the appeal is allowed, enhancing the compensation from a sum of Rs.2,91,539.50 to Rs.12,49,980/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum and costs from the date of the petition till the date of realization, payable by the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally.
22
The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of this judgment, failing which execution can be taken out against them.
The appellants/claimants shall pay the requisite Court-fee in respect of the enhanced amount awarded over and above the compensation claimed.
The appellants 1 to 3 shall be entitled to equal share of compensation.
The impugned award of the learned Tribunal stands modified to the aforesaid extent and in the terms and directions as above.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending for consideration, if any, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA Date: 20.12.2022 L.R.Copy to be marked Dinesh 23 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA M.A.C.M.A.No.584 OF 2006 20.12.2022 L.R.Copy to be marked Dinesh