Ponnuru Anjaneyulu vs S. Durga Rao And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 4653 AP

     * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

                   + M.A.C.M.A.No.266 of 2011

% 04.10.2023
Between:

Ponnuru Anjaneyulu,
S/o.P.Basavaiah, Aged about 28 years,
Occ:Business, R/o.MIG-II-12/F3,
A.P.H.B.Colony, Bhavanipuram,
Vijayawada.                                         ... Appellant
            And
1.    S.Durga Rao,
      S/o.Narasimha Rao, Hindu, Aged about not known,
      Owner of the Auto Rickshaw bearing No.AP 16 X 4304,
      R/o.7-5-56, Papaiah Street, Mahantipuram,
      Vijayawada.
2.    National Insurance Company Limited,
      Represented by its Divisional Manager,
      Alibaig Street, Vijayawada.             ... Respondents

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 04.10.2023

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

1.     Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
       may be allowed to see the judgment?            Yes/No
2.     Whether the copies of judgment may be
       marked to Law Reporters / Journals?            Yes/No
3.     Whether His Lordship wish to
       see the fair copy of the Judgment?             Yes/No


                                    DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J
                                  2



     * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

                    + M.A.C.M.A.No.266 of 2011

% 04.10.2023
Between:

Ponnuru Anjaneyulu,
S/o.P.Basavaiah, Aged about 28 years,
Occ:Business, R/o.MIG-II-12/F3,
A.P.H.B.Colony, Bhavanipuram,
Vijayawada.                                         ... Appellant
            And
1.    S.Durga Rao,
      S/o.Narasimha Rao, Hindu, Aged about not known,
      Owner of the Auto Rickshaw bearing No.AP 16 X 4304,
      R/o.7-5-56, Papaiah Street, Mahantipuram,
      Vijayawada.
2.    National Insurance Company Limited,
      Represented by its Divisional Manager,
      Alibaig Street, Vijayawada.             ... Respondents

! Counsel for Appellant              :   M/s.B.G.Uma Devi

^ Counsel for 2nd Respondent         :   Sri V.Venkata Rami Reddy
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1.     (2011) 1 SCC 343
2.     (1965) 1 ALL ER 563
3.     2013 ACJ 2161 (SC)
4.     (2020) 4 SCC 413
5.     (1879) LR 5 QBD 78
6.     (1963) 2 WLR 1359
7.     (2009) 6 SCC 121
8.     (2003) 2 SCC 274
9.     2019 ACJ 559 (SC)
This Court made the following:
                                      3



     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

                     M.A.C.M.A.No.266 of 2011
JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the appellant/petitioner

aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 25.06.2007 passed in

M.V.O.P.No.1020 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents

Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada (for

short "the Tribunal").

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

they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was a

resident of Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada and he used to run

stone-crusher and lorry tipper at Mulapadu. On 09.02.2001 at

about 11.30 p.m., while the petitioner was returning from

Mangalagiri to Vijayawada on a motorcycle bearing

No.AP 31 N 612 and when he reached Prakasam Barrage, an auto

rickshaw bearing No.AP 16 X 4304 (hereinafter referred to as "the

offending vehicle") being driven by its driver in a rash and

negligent manner and without blowing the horn dashed the

petitioner as a result, he fell down and sustained bleeding injuries

on his head and multiple fractures on his right leg and other

injuries all over the body. Immediately, the petitioner was shifted

to Government General Hospital, Vijayawada by the auto driver.

(ii) On receipt of information, I Town Police, Vijayawada

recorded the statement of the petitioner and based on the

statement, a case in Crime No.92 of 2001 was registered by the

I Town Police, Vijayawada, for the offence under Section 338 IPC.

After investigation of the case, a charge sheet was submitted

against the accused-driver.

(iii) The petitioner/injured filed an application claiming

compensation of a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- before the Tribunal on

account of the injuries sustained by him in the said accident.

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

contest the matter.

(v) The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed a written

statement and contended that the insured and insurer of the

motorcycle bearing No.AP 31 N 612 are proper and necessary

parties. It is further contended that there was no rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle in causing

the accident. As such, this respondent is not liable to pay the

compensation. It is further contended that there was medical

negligence in treating the petitioner. It is further contended that

the petitioner has not sustained any permanent or partial

disability and there was no loss of income to the petitioner due to

the injuries sustained by him and prayed for dismissal of the

petition.

(vi) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal

framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 19.02.2001 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto bearing No.AP 16 X 4304?

(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation as prayed for, if so, from whom?

(iii) To what relief?

(vii) During the trial, in order to establish his claim, the

petitioner/claimant was examined as P.W.1 and Dr.D.Venkatesh

and Dr.R.Meher Prasanna, who treated the injured, were

examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.122 and

Ex.X.1. The 1st respondent neither led any evidence nor marked

any documents on his behalf. The Legal Assistant of the 2nd

respondent/Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1 and

Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked.

(viii) The Tribunal, after analyzing the entire oral and

documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the alleged

accident occurred on 19.02.2001 due to the rash and negligent

driving of the offending auto bearing No.AP 16 X 4304 by its driver

due to which he sustained injuries. Considering the above aspect,

the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,05,000/- with

interest @ 7.5% per annum and with proportionate costs against

the 1st and 2nd respondents, from the date of petition till the date

of realization.

(ix) On appreciation of the evidence, the learned Tribunal has

awarded the compensation of Rs.1,05,000/-. The learned Tribunal

has discussed the manner in which the said compensation was

arrived at, and the corresponding amount is set out herein below

in a tabular form for ready reference.

  S.No.         Heads of compensation             Amount of
                                             compensation awarded
                                                    in Rs.
       1     Pain and Suffering                            15,000/-
       2     Loss of earnings on account                   50,000/-
             of the disability & Extra
             Nourishment
       3     Medical Expenses                               40,000/-
             Total                                        1,05,000/-

(x)        Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant/injured preferred

the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

4. Heard Ms.B.G.Uma Devi, learned counsel for the appellant

and V.Venkata Rami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the

Insurance Company.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/injured would submit that

the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal is meager, though

an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was claimed. Further, she would

submit that the appellant is entitled to more compensation than

the amount claimed in the original petition, as his earning

capacity was severely affected in view of the nature of the injuries

sustained by him. She would further submit that the

appellant/injured is entitled to more compensation under the head

of loss of earning capacity. Further, she would submit that the

impugned Order and Decree passed by the Tribunal is erroneous

and is contrary to the material on record, which cannot be

sustained under law. Further, she would submit that the Tribunal

erred in accepting the contentions of the insurer. She would

further submit that the appellant/injured is entitled to the

amounts under different heads in the light of the principles laid

down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar &

another1. Further, she would submit that the petitioner was the

owner of the lorry bearing No.AP 31 U 703, he was an income tax

assessee and he used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month and due to

the injuries sustained in the alleged accident, he was unable to

perform his business actively. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled

to compensation under the head of loss of past and future

(2011) 1 SCC 343

earnings. Further, she would submit that the petitioner spent a

huge amount on the fractures sustained to his right leg above the

knee and steel plates were inserted and thus, the amount awarded

by the learned Tribunal for medical expenses is very meagre.

Further, she would submit that the petitioner was an inpatient for

more than two months for his treatment and surgeries and for five

years he was unable to attend the business transactions. She

would further submit that the Tribunal has grossly erred in

assessing the income of the petitioner although, he was getting a

monthly income of Rs.10,000/- as mentioned in the petition and

awarded compensation, which is not sustainable under law.

Further, she would submit that the Tribunal has not awarded

compensation under the head of attendant charges. Therefore, she

urged that the amount of compensation may be determined and

just and reasonable compensation may be awarded.

6. Learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd Respondent/Insurance

Company would submit that the Tribunal has taken into account

all the relevant factors while arriving at the compensation payable

to the claimant. Further, he submitted that there was contributory

negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and the

rider of the motorcycle in causing the accident. The insured and

the insurer of the motorcycle are also responsible for paying the

compensation. Further, he would submit that no evidence has

been adduced by the petitioner to prove his income before the

Tribunal and as such the Tribunal has not assessed the income of

the petitioner/claimant to pass an Award. Therefore, the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and the

Award does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality, which may

not call for any interference.

7. 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 not in accordance with the principles of law and requires enhancement?

2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or needs interference of this Court?

POINT Nos.1 and 2:

8. A perusal of the impugned award would show that the

Tribunal has framed Issue No.1 as to whether the petitioner

sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 19.02.2001 due

to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto bearing

No.AP 16 X 4304, to which the Tribunal after considering the

evidence of P.W.1(Injured) and P.Ws.2 & 3(Doctors), coupled with

documentary evidence, has categorically observed that the

accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the auto bearing No.AP 16 X 4304. Therefore, there is no

reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that the

accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the offending vehicle (auto) bearing No.AP 16 X 4304.

9. It is a well-settled principle that while determining the

compensation payable to the injured in the claim filed under the

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

the Court of Appeal in Ward Vs. James2 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".

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

Apex Court in Rekha Jain Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.,3

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)

11. 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. In the facts of this case,

looking into the beneficial purpose of the enactment of the Motor

Vehicles Act and having regard to the principles laid down in the

aforementioned judgments, this Court is of the view that the

award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law.

12. In Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand4, the Hon‟ble Apex Court has

quoted pertinent observations from a very old case in Phillips Vs.

London & South Western Railway Co.,5 as under:

"You cannot put the plaintiff back again into his original position, but you must bring your reasonable common sense to bear, and you must always recollect that this is the only occasion on which compensation can be given. The plaintiff can never sue again for it. You have, therefore, now to give him compensation once and for all. He has done no wrong, he has suffered a wrong at the hands of the defendants and you must take care to give him full fair compensation for that which he has suffered." Besides, the Tribunals should always remember that the measures of damages in all these cases "should be such as to enable even a tortfeasor to say that he had amply atoned for his misadventure."

13. The Hon‟ble Apex Court has further quoted pertinent

observations from the case titled H. West & Son Ltd. vs.

Shephard6 as under:

(2020) 4 SCC 413

(1879) LR 5 QBD 78

1963 2 WLR 1359

"Money may be awarded so that something tangible may be procured to replace something else of the like nature which has been destroyed or lost. But money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered and shattered. All that Judges and Courts can do is to award sums which must be regarded as giving reasonable compensation. In the process there must be endeavour to secure some uniformity in the general method of approach. By common assent awards must be reasonable and must be assessed with moderation. Futhermore, it is eminently desirable that so far as possible comparable injuries should be compensated by comparable awards.

14. In the instant case, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd

respondent/Insurance Company while submitting arguments

stated that the accident occurred due to a head on collision and

the injured is responsible for the contributory negligence in

causing the accident. The said plea was not taken either in the

written statement of the 2nd respondent or in the evidence of

R.W.1. Therefore, the learned Tribunal did not give any finding

about the contributory negligence. On the other hand, the learned

Tribunal observed that the accident occurred due to the rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore,

there is no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel

for the Insurance Company with regard to the contributory

negligence of the petitioner in causing the accident. As such, the

Insurance Company cannot escape from its liability.

15. In the case on hand, the petitioner/injured has taken a plea

in the petition as well as in the evidence that he was

self-employed and he had a lorry bearing No.AP 31 U 703.

Further, he was an income tax assessee and he used to earn

Rs.10,000/- per month by transacting the business with third

parties. To substantiate the above said pleas, neither oral evidence

nor any documentary evidence is adduced by the petitioner.

Therefore, there is no force in the contention that the petitioner

used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month.

16. In the instant case, the learned Tribunal has not assessed

the monthly income of the injured. It is not in dispute that the

petitioner/injured was aged about 28 years by the date of the

accident. In the absence of proof of the income of the injured as

self-employed @ Rs.10,000/- per month, this Court is of the view

that he should be considered as a labour and as per the Minimum

Wages Act, he used to earn Rs.100/- per day i.e., Rs.3,000/- per

month at the time of the accident, on the assumption that the

wages of a labour/coolie during the relevant period i.e., in the year

2001 was Rs.100/- per a day i.e., Rs.3,000/- per a month.

Therefore, the claim of the petitioner can be determined by taking

his monthly income as Rs.3,000/-.

17. The learned Tribunal has not given any cogent reasons for

arriving at a conclusion in fixing the compensation to the

petitioner. The learned Tribunal also referred to various exhibits

supporting the case of the petitioner with regard to the bills issued

by the hospitals and treated them as genuine but awarded a

meager amount of Rs.40,000/- against Rs.1,14,218/- as per the

medical bills.

18. Despite referring to the various exhibits in proof of the

injuries sustained and expenses incurred by the petitioner for the

treatment, the Claims Tribunal has not properly evaluated the

compensation claimed by the petitioner. The evidence of the

Doctors/P.Ws.2 and 3, who treated the injured, coupled with the

disability certificate, is very much relevant to assessing the

compensation.

19. Dr.D.Venkatesh, Orthopedic Surgeon was examined as

P.W.2. He deposed that periodically he treated the petitioner. The

petitioner underwent an operation on his right leg and an implant

(rod) was inserted in his right leg. He further deposed that the

operation was conducted in Ortho Care Hospital. Ex.A.101 was

issued by him towards the cost of the implant, surgery fee etc. He

further deposed that due to multiple fractures, the treatment took

a long time and prolonged bed rest was required. Further, due to a

shortage of the right leg, the petitioner has got disability of 40% to

50%.

20. Another Doctor i.e., Dr.R.Meher Prasanna, who treated the

injured was examined as P.W.3. He deposed that he treated the

petitioner/injured on 17.06.2005 for commuted fracture of right

patella and Exs.103 and 105 to 112 are the bills towards

medicines and expenses. He further deposed that as per

Ex.P.9/Discharge Summary, the petitioner sustained three

grievous and two simple injuries. P.W.1 deposed that due to

accident he sustained multiple injuries, and he was treated by

P.Ws.2 and 3 and Ex.A.8 is the Disability Certificate issued by the

Medical Board.

21. A perusal of Ex.A.8/Disability Certificate issued by the

Medical Board discloses that the petitioner/injured sustained 40%

disability. Perusal of Ex.A.4/Discharge Summary discloses that

the petitioner was admitted in Lokesh Nursing Home, Vijayawada

on 20.02.2001 and discharged on 24.03.2001 and during his

prolonged treatment the petitioner produced so many medical

bills, which were not considered by the learned Tribunal. The

petitioner/injured sustained 40% disability, and three grievous

injuries, he was operated on his right leg and the implant was

inserted. The learned Tribunal recorded the finding that the

disability sustained by the petitioner is not a permanent disability

and the said finding is not sustainable. Keeping in view of the

disability as certified by the concerned Medical Board, the amount

of compensation has to be arrived at, which should be just and

reasonable.

22. The assessment of loss of future earnings is explained in Raj

Kumar‟s case (supra). The calculation of compensation will be as

follows:

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

b) Loss of future earnings per annum (40% of the prior annual income) .... Rs.14,400/-

c) Multiplier applicable with reference to age (As per the judgment of Hon‟ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation7) .... 17

d) Loss of future earnings (Rs.14,400 x 17) .... Rs.2,44,800/-

(Rs.3,000 x 12 x 17 x 40/100)

23. Further, in tune with the expression of the Hon‟ble Supreme

Court in Raj Kumar's case (supra), the petitioner/claimant is also

entitled to future medical expenses, loss of earnings during the

period of treatment and transportation charges. Considering the

facts and circumstances of the case, it is deemed to award a

reasonable amount under the heads. The claims tribunal awarded

an amount of Rs.40,000/- as against the bills observed by this

Court for an amount of Rs.1,14,218/-, which is not tenable.

Further, the injured, who is a labourer, is not supposed to be that

7 (2009) 6 SCC 121

much meticulous in maintaining the bills for any future use. The

claimant has remained in the hospital for nearly three months. He

was admitted in various hospitals for treatment and underwent

surgery. Certainly, the medical expenditure incurred would be

more than the awarded amount as his right leg was operated, the

implant was inserted and subsequently removed. It is evident that

the petitioner/claimant sustained three grievous injuries, one

major surgery was done, and the implant was inserted in the right

leg. One must remember that amongst people who are not

Government employees and belong to the poorer strata of society,

bills are not retained. Some of the bills have been excluded by the

Court below on the ground that the name of the patient is not

written on the bills. There is no dispute with regard to the long

period of treatment and hospitalization of the petitioner/injured.

Therefore, limiting the amount only to the bills that have been

paid in the name of the petitioner only, would not be reasonable

and the learned Tribunal has not given cogent reasons to reduce

the amount from Rs.1,14,218/- to Rs.40,000/- towards medical

expenses. Therefore, the amount of Rs.40,000/- awarded towards

medical expenses is not just and reasonable. Therefore, under this

head the compensation is enhanced from Rs.40,000/- to

Rs.1,50,000/-. Further, in view of the injuries sustained by the

petitioner, he would have incurred medical expenses in the future.

Therefore, this Court is of the view that awarding an amount of

Rs.10,000/- towards future medical expenses would be just and

reasonable.

24. Further, the petitioner/claimant has remained in the

hospital for nearly three months, as stated above, and as such, he

might have lost his income during that period. Therefore, an

amount of Rs.9,000/- (Rs.3,000 x 3) can be awarded to the

petitioner for loss of earnings during the period of treatment.

25. The petitioner/claimant would have been entitled to separate

attendant charges for the period during which he was hospitalized.

The learned Tribunal has not awarded the attendant charges.

Even if the Court has not paid the attendant charges, the family

members of the injured must have paid the attendant charges,

who had attended the hospital. The family members also left their

work in the village to attend to the injured in various hospitals.

The claimant would have at least one attendant and taking the

cost of minimum wages of Rs.100/- per day, an amount of

Rs.9,000/- is awarded towards attendant charges.

26. As far as the present case is concerned, the injured suffered

grievous injuries and was operated and implant was inserted and

subsequently removed. This is a case where the departure has to

be made from the normal rule and pain and suffering suffered by

the injured is such that a reasonable amount of compensation can

be compensated for pain and suffering. Therefore, this Court is of

the opinion that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the

case, by taking a very conservative view of the matter, the amount

payable for pain and suffering to the injured should be at least

Rs.1,00,000/- against Rs.15,000/-, which was awarded by the

learned Tribunal.

27. 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."

28. On an overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on

record and the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the

afore-cited decisions, I am of the definite opinion that the

appellant/petitioner is entitled to enhancement of compensation

as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below

for easy reference.

S.No. Head of Compensation Amount Enhanced Amount awarded by the Tribunal 1 Pain & Suffering 15,000/- 1,00,000/- 2 Three Grievous injuries ---- 75,000/- (Rs.25,000 x 3) 3 Simple Injuries ---- 5,000/- 4 Medical Expenses 40,000/- 1,50,000/- (As per bills he spent Rs.1,14,218/-) 5 Transport Expenses ---- 5,000/- 6 Loss of future earnings 50,000/- 2,44,800/- (Rs.3,000 x 12 x 17 x 40/100) 7 Loss of earnings during ---- 9,000/- the period of treatment 8 Attendant Charges ---- 9,000/- 9 Future Medical Expenses ---- 10,000/- Total 1,05,000/- 6,07,800/-

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

Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and others 8, 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 the

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

(2003) 2 SCC 274

compensation", even if it is in 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

learned 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.

30. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case

and in view of the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court, this

Court is of the opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal

warrants interference and the amount of compensation needs to

be enhanced and thereby, enhanced the compensation from

Rs.1,05,000/- to Rs.6,07,800/-.

31. Resultantly, the appeal is hereby allowed, enhancing the

compensation from Rs.1,05,000/- to Rs.6,07,800/- with costs and

interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till

realization against the Respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally.

(ii) Respondents are directed to deposit the compensation

amount within a period of two months from the date of this

judgment, failing which execution can be taken against them.

(iii) The appellant/petitioner is directed to pay the

requisite Court-fee in respect of the enhanced amount awarded

over and above the compensation claimed (As per the judgment of

Hon‟ble Apex Court in Ramla Vs. National Insurance Company

Limited9).

(iv) On such deposit, the appellant/petitioner is entitled to

withdraw the entire amount by filing a proper application before

the Tribunal.

(v) The impugned award of the learned Tribunal stands

modified to the aforesaid extent and in the terms and directions as

above.

(vi) The record be sent back to the Tribunal within three

weeks from this day.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending for

consideration, if any, shall stand closed.

JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

04.10.2023 Dinesh Mjl/* L.R.Copy to be marked

2019 ACJ 559 (SC)

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

M.A.C.M.A.No.266 OF 2011

04.10.2023

Dinesh Mjl/* L.R.Copy to be marked