Karri Sujatha 2 Ors. vs M.A. Srinivasa Rao Anr.
2022 Latest Caselaw 9749 AP

     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

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

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

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'.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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,

(2020) 11 SCC 356

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

2017 ACJ 2700 (SC)

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

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. 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

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

2018 ACJ 2782 (SC)

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

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

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-

(2003) 2 SCC 274

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.

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

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