Bayanna vs B. Purushotam Reddy And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 8064 AP

                                 1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATHI

                                ****
                   M.A.C.M.A.No.1313 of 2006


Between:

Bayanna, S/o.Adeppa, Aged 28 years,
Hindu, R/o.N.Rangapuram (V), Peapully Mandal,
Kurnool District.                                    ... Appellant

             And

1.     B.Purushotam Reddy, S/o.B.Venkata Reddy,
       Aged 26 years, Hindu, Owner of Tractor and Trailer
       No.AP 02 F 1452 and 1453, R/o.Bukkapatnam(V),
       Kondapuram (M), Kadapa District.
2.     M/s.Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
       Rep.by its Divisional Manager,
       Kurnool.                                 ... Respondents

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 28-10-2022


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.1313 of 2006

% 28-10-2022

Between:

Bayanna, S/o.Adeppa, Aged 28 years,
Hindu, R/o.N.Rangapuram (V), Peapully Mandal,
Kurnool District.                                    ... Appellant

             And

1.     B.Purushotam Reddy, S/o.B.Venkata Reddy,
       Aged 26 years, Hindu, Owner of Tractor and Trailer
       No.AP 02 F 1452 and 1453, R/o.Bukkapatnam(V),
       Kondapuram (M), Kadapa District.
2.     M/s.Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
       Rep.by its Divisional Manager,
       Kurnool.                                    ... Respondents


! Counsel for Appellant              : Sri A.Jaya Sankar Reddy

^ Counsel for 2nd Respondent         : Sri N.Ramakrishna

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

       1) (1965) 1 All ER 563

       2) 2013 ACJ 2161 (SC)

       3) 2008 ACJ 2039 (SC)

       4) 2012 ACJ 583 (SC)

       5) 2014 ACJ 653 (SC)

       6) 2013 ACJ 2161 (SC)

       7) 2011 ACJ 1 (SC)

       8) (2003) 2 SCC 274

This Court made the following:
 3
                                      4



 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

                  M.A.C.M.A.No.1313 of 2006

JUDGMENT:

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988 (for short "the Act") has been filed by the

appellant/petitioner challenging the judgment and award

dt.26.10.2005 delivered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-

cum-I Additional District Court, Kurnool in M.V.O.P.No.23 of

2004 granting compensation of a sum of Rs.2,23,300/- along

with 7.5% interest thereon from the date of the claim petition till

the date of realization of the amount to the petitioner on account

of injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road accident near

Sivalayam at Kadapa-Tadipatri road on 08.03.2003.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as

they are arrayed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal

(hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal‟).

3. The factual matrix of the case is thus:

a) The Petitioner in the claim petition filed the above O.P

stating inter alia that on 08.03.2003 while he was traveling by a

R.T.C bus bearing Registration No.AP 9 Z 7484 from Pulivendula

to Tadipatri and when the bus reached Sivalayam at about 7.10

p.m., the offending vehicle i.e., tractor and trailer bearing

Registration Nos.AP 02 F 1452 and AP 02 F 1453 respectively

loaded with Napa Stones came in opposite direction being driven

by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and hit the bus.

Thus, caused the accident, as a result, he sustained a crush

injury on his right leg besides sustained injuries all over his

body and he was shifted to the hospital for treatment. The

matter was reported to the Police alleging that the accident took

place as a result of rash and negligent driving of the said tractor

and trailer and based on the F.I.R lodged by the driver of the

R.T.C bus, a case in Crime No.35 of 2003 was registered for the

offence under Sections 337 & 338 I.P.C. After investigation of

the case, a charge sheet was submitted against the accused-

driver of the offending vehicle for having committed offence

punishable under Sections 337 and 338 I.P.C. Thereafter, the

injured filed an application claiming compensation of

Rs.6,00,000/- before the Tribunal on account of the injuries i.e.,

for Amputation of the right leg above the knee sustained by him

in the road accident, against the 1st and 2nd respondents who are

the insured and the insurer respectively of the offending

vehicle.

(b) The 1st respondent/owner of the offending vehicle did not

contest the matter. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company

filed counter contending inter alia that the petitioner is put to

strict proof that the accident was caused due to the rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and

further strict proof that the driver of the offending vehicle was

holding a valid driving licence and got a valid permit and fitness

etc., to drive the same on the road. Further, it is contended that

the owner of the bus (A.P.S.R.T.C) is the necessary party to the

proceedings and further contended that the claim of the

petitioner is excessive and exorbitant and prayed for dismissal of

the petition.

(c) On the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed three issues

as under:

(1) Whether the accident occurred due to the collision between the bus bearing No.AP 9 Z 7484 and the tractor-cum-trailer bearing Nos.AP 02 F 1452 and AP 02 F 1453?

(2) Whether the accident not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor-cum-trailer bearing Nos.AP 02 F 1452 and AP 02 F 1453?

(3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, and if so, to what amount and from whom?

(4) To what relief?

(d) In order to establish the claim of the petitioner, at the time

of enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 and

X.1 were got marked. The Assistant Administrative Officer of the

Insurance Company (R.2) was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.B.1

was marked on behalf of the 2nd respondent.

(e) Appreciating the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and placing

reliance upon Exs.A.1 to A.6 and X.1, the certified copies of

F.I.R., Wound Certificate, Charge Sheet, Calender and Judgment

in C.C.405 of 2003, Disability Certificate, Bunch of Medical Bills

and Case Sheet respectively the learned Tribunal was of the view

that the accident in the instant case was due to rash and

negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Apart from that, the

driver of the offending vehicle made a confession the accident

occurred due to his rash and negligent driving. The driver of the

offending vehicle was convicted and sentenced for the offence

under Sections 337 & 338 IPC and was sentenced to pay fines of

Rs.300/- and 600/- respectively, in default of payment of the

fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days and

one month respectively for the offence committed.

(f) On considering the above documentary evidence, the

learned Tribunal came to a conclusion that the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of

the offending vehicle and awarded total compensation of

Rs.2,23,300/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of

petition till realization to the petitioner/claimant and the 1st

respondent has to pay the amount as the owner of the vehicle

and the 2nd respondent has to indemnify the same, being the

insurer of the vehicle.

4. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded

by the learned Tribunal dated 26.10.2005 made in

M.V.O.P.No.23 of 2004, the appellant/claimant has preferred the

instant appeal seeking enhancement of the same.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant/injured would

submit that the Tribunal has failed to consider the appropriate

income of the claimant and has not awarded just and reasonable

compensation under different heads and it would be appropriate

to reconsider the quantum by taking Rs.3,000/- per month as

earnings of the claimant at the time of the accident. Further, he

would submit that, by taking into consideration the age of the

injured i.e., 28 years, as per the Amended Act, the multiplier of

18 should be applied for passing the award. He would further

contend that the Tribunal erred in awarding a sum of

Rs.50,000/- towards Pain and Suffering. Whereas the evidence

on record shows that his right leg was amputated above the

knee and he underwent treatment in different hospitals. He

further contended that the Tribunal erred in granting amounts

under various heads by following the judgments of the Hon‟ble

Apex Court. Therefore, it makes clear that the award passed by

the Tribunal is not in accordance with the principles of law and

needs to be modified by following Raj Kumar‟s case. Though the

said ruling was not pronounced by the time of passing the

award, the said ruling is applicable to the pending appeals and

the same may not be applied to the disadvantage of the

claimants. He, thus, prayed to suitably enhance the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

6. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance

Company supporting the award passed by the Tribunal would

submit that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just

and reasonable. He would further submit that fixing of notional

income of the injured at Rs.1,600/- per month is proper even in

the absence of documentary evidence regarding the income of

the injured. He would further submit that the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal is fair and reasonable and does not

require further enhancement. Hence, prayed for the dismissal of

the appeal.

7. In the light of the above rival arguments, the points for

determination in this appeal are:

1. Whether the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is not in accordance with the principles of law and requires enhancement?

2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or need interference?

8. POINT Nos.1 & 2: The accident, involvement of the tractor

and trailer bearing Nos.AP 02 F 1452 and AP 02 F 1453 and the

injuries i.e., for Amputation of the right leg above the knee

sustained by the claimant are not in dispute, as stated supra. It

is a well settled principle that while determining the

compensation payable to him in the claim filed under the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988, this Court referred to the judgment of the

Court of Appeal in Ward Vs. James1 Halsbury‟s Laws of

England, 4th Edition, Volume 12 (Page 446) wherein it was held

as follows:

"When compensation is to be awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenity of life, the special circumstances of the claimant have to be taken into account including his age, the unusual deprivation he has suffered, the effect thereof on his future life. The amount of compensation for non-pecuniary loss is not easy to determine but the award must reflect that different circumstances have been taken into consideration".

9. Further, it is relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon‟ble

Apex Court in Rekha Jain Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.,2

wherein it was held as follows:

"It is well settled principle that in granting compensation for personal injury, in injured has to be compensated (1) for pain and suffering (2) for loss of amenities, (3) shortened expectation of life, if any, (4) loss of earnings or loss of earning capacity or in some cases for both, and (5) medical treatment and other special damages".

(1965) 1 All ER 563

2013 ACJ 2161 (SC)

10. If the above two judgments are read together, the intention

of the Hon‟ble Apex Court though under different contexts, is

crystal clear that the impugned award passed by the learned

Tribunal is not just and reasonable, which becomes law of the

land.

11. At this juncture, it needs to refer to the decisions rendered

by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of,

K.Janardhan Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,3, Mohan

Soni Vs. Ram Avtar Tomar4 and Sanjay Kumar Vs. Ashok

Kumar5. The judgments make clear the intention of the Hon‟ble

Apex Court that in case, of amputation of either of the legs above

the knee or below the knee, considering the loss of earning

capacity of the victim may be high as 100%, but in no case, it

would be not less than 90% or 70%.

12. In the present case of nature, the injured sustained 60%

disability as per the Disability Certificate issued by the Medical

Board, and P.W.2(Doctor) who treated the injured deposed that

on 11.03.2003 the injured had been admitted in the hospital

with a crush injury on the right leg and the knee amputation

was done on 11.03.2003 and revision amputation was done on

2008 ACJ 2039 (SC)

2012 ACJ 583 (SC)

2014 ACJ 653 (SC)

05.04.2003. The patient was discharged on 17.04.2003. Ex.A.5

is the Disability Certificate issued by the District Medical Board,

Anantapur. Ex.A.5 would show that the disability of the injured

was assessed at 60%. In view of the evidence of P.W.2, the

learned Tribunal ought to have considered the disability not less

than 70%. Therefore, the award passed by the learned Tribunal

needs to be modified under the head of loss of earning capacity

by following Raj Kumar's case.

13. In the present case of nature, the claimant is a labourer

attending the work of cutting slabs in a quarry and may not

have the better prospect and should be entitled to better

amenities in his life. The Tribunal had failed to consider the

proper income of the claimant and has not awarded just and

reasonable compensation under different conventional heads. It

would be proper to reconsider the quantum by taking the

income of the injured at Rs.3,000/- per month at the time of the

incident. The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is

meager and the claimant is entitled to more compensation in

view of the evidence adduced which was not properly

appreciated by the Claims Tribunal. Though an amount of

Rs.3,000/- was claimed as the monthly income of the injured,

the Claims Tribunal erroneously fixed the income of the injured

as Rs.1,600/- per month. It would be appropriate to reconsider

the quantum by taking the monthly income of the injured at

Rs.3,000/- at the time of the accident.

14. However, it may be appropriate to mention here, while

laying down the legal position with regard to awarding

compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, the case of Kavita

Vs. Deepak and Others6 wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court relied

on the judgment in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar7

while awarding compensation. At this juncture, it is relevant to

refer Raj Kumar's case wherein it was held as follows:

"The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`Act' for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C.K.Subramonia Iyer Vs. T.Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR

2013 ACJ 2161 (SC)

2011 ACJ 1 (SC)

1970 SC 376, R.D.Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker Vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467) The heads under which the compensation need to be awarded in personal injury cases as under:

Pecuniary Damages (Special Damages)

(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.

(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:

(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;

(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.

(iii) Future medical expenses.

Non-pecuniary damages (General damages):

(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.

(v) Loss of amenities (and / or loss of prospects of marriage)

(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity) In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.

Assessment of pecuniary damages under item

(i) and item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actual and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses - item (iii) - depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages - items (iv), (v) and (vi)

- involves determination of lump sum amounts

with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decision of this Court and High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability -

item (ii)(a). We are concerned with that assessment in this case. Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability."

15. In the present case of nature, the Claims Tribunal ought to

have applied the multiplier „17‟ as the injured was found to be

28 years old and ought to have considered the future prospects

of the injured. Having failed to consider the same, the Claims

Tribunal committed an illegality in awarding a meager amount of

compensation payable to the claimant by following the decisions

rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court stated supra.

16. In the present case, the learned Tribunal awarded an

amount of Rs.6,000/- towards extra nourishment and

transportation to the hospital, Rs.1,49,760/- towards future loss

of income, Rs.50,000/- towards pain & suffering and loss of

amenities, Rs.7,680/- towards loss of earnings, and Rs.9,860/-

towards medical bills and in total Rs.2,23,300/-. Challenging

the same, the present appeal has been filed.

17. The Tribunal erred in awarding compensation under

various conventional heads. As per the decision in Raj Kumar

case stated supra, loss of future earnings has to be assessed.

Loss of earning capacity has to be assessed on the basis of

evidence. The claimant who is a labourer attending the work of

cutting slabs in the quarry and in and around the date of the

accident, the wage of the labourer was between Rs.100/- to

Rs.150/- per day or Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,500/- per month. In my

view, the claim was honest and bonafide, and therefore, there

was no reason for the Tribunal to have reduced the monthly

earning of the appellant from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.1,600/-.

Therefore, it would be proper to reconsider the quantum by

taking the income of the injured at Rs.3,000/- per month at the

time of the incident. During cross-examination of P.W.1, it was

elicited by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that

the injured used to earn Rs.100/- per day. That itself is

sufficient to reconsider the quantum by taking Rs.3,000/- per

month as the income of the injured. Therefore, the Tribunal has

failed to consider the appropriate income of the claimant and

has not awarded just and reasonable compensation under

different heads. As such, it would be appropriate to reconsider

the quantum by taking a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month as

income of the injured at the time of the accident.

18. (a) So far as disability is concerned, the claimant has

pleaded to consider the same as 100% because of the

amputation to his right leg above the knee and unable to do any

work by sitting on the floor. In view of the judgments of the

Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of K.Janardhan Vs. United India

Insurance Co. Ltd., Mohan Soni Vs. Ram Avtar Tomar and

Sanjay Kumar Vs. Ashok Kumar, referred supra, and

considering the Disability Certificate issued by the Medical

Board in this case, assessing the loss of earning capacity of

the injured at 60% at least, would be just and reasonable.

Thus, the calculation of compensation towards loss of future

earnings, as per the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court

of India in Raj Kumar's case will be as follows:

a) Annual income before the accident .... Rs.36,000/-

b) Loss of future earnings per annum (60% of the prior annual income) .... Rs. 21,600/-

c) Multiplier applicable with reference to age .... 17

d) Loss of future earnings (21,600 x 17) ....Rs.3,67,200/-

But, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,49,000/- towards

loss of future earnings. Therefore, the appellant/claimant is

entitled to an amount of Rs.3,67,200/- towards loss of future

earnings.

(b) The Tribunal awarded Rs.9,860/- towards medical bills.

The right leg of the injured was amputated and he was

hospitalized for 45 days. The injured who is a labourer is not

supposed to be that much meticulous so as to maintain the

bills for any future use. The claimant has remained in the

hospital for a period of more than 45 days. Though he joined

in Government Hospital, certainly the medical expenditure

incurred would be more than the awarded amount, as his

right leg was amputated above the knee. Therefore, the

compensation under the head of medical bills is enhanced

from Rs.9,860/- to Rs.50,000/-.

(c) The Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation

towards loss of amenities as the person who is suffering

permanent disability at 60% cannot lead a normal life. Since

the right leg was amputated, any amount of compensation

cannot make the life of an injured normal one as it was before

the accident. The compensation is only the means to grant

some support for the loss he suffered with which he is

expected to live for the rest of his life. Therefore, this Court is

of the view that Rs.1,00,000/- has to be awarded towards the

loss of amenities of life.

(d) Further, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.7,680/-

towards loss of earnings for 45 days i.e., during the period of

treatment. The injured claimed his income as Rs.100/- per

day prior to the accident. By taking into consideration the

evidence of the injured, an amount of Rs.100/- per day is

taken as income of the injured, and loss of earnings for 45

days during the period during which he was hospitalized would

come to Rs.100 x 45 = Rs.4,500/-. As such, reducing the

amount of Rs.7,680/- to Rs.4,500/- under this head is just and

reasonable.

(e) Apart from that, the amount under another conventional

head i.e., Attendant Charges needs to be awarded to the injured.

Since the injured was hospitalized for a period of 45 days and

his right leg was amputated, at least two persons are required to

attend to the injured even to lift him from the bed for other

purposes. As such, at least Rs.200/- for each attendant has to

be awarded which comes to Rs.200 x 2 x 45 = Rs.18,000/-.

Hence, an amount of Rs.18,000/- towards attendant charges

deserves to be granted to the claimant.

(f) The Tribunal awarded Rs.6,000/- towards extra

nourishment and transportation from the place of the accident

to Tadipatri and from Tadipatri to Kurnool. This Court is of the

view that Rs.6,000/- is sufficient for transportation, and an

amount of Rs.40,000/- needs to be awarded towards extra

nourishment.

(g) Though the Tribunal has awarded compensation of

Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, it needs to be enhanced

to Rs.1,00,000/- as the injured had suffered in consequence to

the amputation of the right leg above the knee.

(h) Apart from this, by taking the pathetic situation of the

injured into consideration because of the amputation of his right

leg above the knee, an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards artificial

leg including the future medical expenses deserves to be granted

to the claimant.

19. Hence, keeping in view the permanent disability of the

claimant/injured, this Court is of the view that the

compensation of Rs.2,23,300/- awarded by the Tribunal has to

be enhanced as follows:

 S.No      Name of the Head          Awarded by             Enhanced/Redu
                                    the Tribunal              ced by this
                                                                 Court
      1    Loss   of       future   Rs.1,49,760/-             Rs. 3,67,200/-
           earnings

      2    Medical Bills            Rs.        9,860/-        Rs.   50,000/-
      3    Loss of amenities              ----                Rs. 1,00,000/-
      4    Loss of earnings         Rs.        7,680/-        Rs.    4,500/-
           during the period
           of treatment
      5    Transportation           Rs.        6,000/-        Rs.    6,000/-
      6    Attendant Charges              ----                Rs.   18,000/-
      7    Extra Nourishment              ----                Rs.   40,000/-
      8    Pain & Suffering         Rs. 50,000/-              Rs. 1,00,000/-
      9    Artificial   Leg     &         ----                Rs.   50,000/-
           Future       Medical
           Expenses
 Total                              Rs.2,23,300/-             Rs. 7,35,700/-

20. As per the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India

in the case of Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and

others8, under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,

there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only

up to the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate

case where from the evidence brought on record, if Tribunal

Court considers that claimant is entitled to get more

compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award.

In an appropriate case where from the evidence brought on

record if Tribunal Court considers that claimant is entitled to get

more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such

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

which should appear to be just and proper. In the present case,

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 claimant is entitled to more

compensation though he might not have claimed the same at the

time of filing of the claim petition.

(2003) 2 SCC 274

21. 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.2,23,300/-

to Rs.7,35,700/-.

22. Consequently, the appeal is hereby allowed enhancing the

compensation from Rs.2,23,300/- to Rs.7,35,700/- with interest

at 7.5% per annum, with proportionate costs from the date of

the petition till the date of realization against 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 appellant/claimant shall pay the requisite Court-fee

in respect of the enhanced amount awarded over and above the

compensation claimed. Rest of the directions given by the

Tribunal with regard to entitlement of the appellant/injured in

withdrawing the amount shall remain unaltered.

The impugned award of the 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: 28.10.2022 L.R.Copy to be marked.

Dinesh

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

M.A.C.M.A.No.1313 OF 2006

28.10.2022

Dinesh