Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Apsrtc, Rep By Its Md., Hyderabad vs B Hbuvaneswari, Chittoor Dist 3 Others on 22 August, 2025
1
APHC010802252015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3520]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 686/2015
Between:
1. APSRTC, REP BY ITS MD., HYDERABAD, REP. BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR, BUS BHAVAN, MUSHEERABAD,
HYDERABAD.
...APPELLANT
AND
1. B HBUVANESWARI CHITTOOR DIST 3 OTHERS, W/O. LATE
SOMASEKHAR REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
WIDOW, RESIDENT OF D. NO. 1-24, KOTHA VEPAKUPAM
VILLAGE, NETHAKUPPAM POST, RAMACHANDRAPURAM
MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
2. B KUSUMA, D/O. LATE SOMASEKHAR REDDY, HINDU, AGED
ABOUT 8 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, RESIDENT OF D. NO. 1-24,
KOTHA VEPAKUPAM VILLAGE, NETHAKUPPAM POST,
RAMACHANDRAPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
3. B MOHANA, D/O. LATE SOMASEKHAR REDDY, HINDU, AGED
ABOUT 6 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, RESIDENT OF D. NO. 1-24,
KOTHA VEPAKUPAM VILLAGE, NETHAKUPPAM POST,
RAMACHANDRAPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. [RR 2
& 3 ARE MINORS REP BY R-I]
4. B NEELAMMA, W/O. LATE ERAGAMA REDDY, HINDU, AGED
2
ABOUT 55 YEARS, WIDOW, RESIDENT OF D. NO. 1-24, KOTHA
VEPAKUPAM VILLAGE, NETHAKUPPAM POST,
RAMACHANDRAPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC)
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. O UDAYA KUMAR
The Court made the following:
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A.No.686 of 2015
JUDGMENT:
I. Introductory:-
The respondent-APSRTC in M.V.O.P.No.107 of 2011 on the file
of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge
Tirupati [for short “learned MACT”], feeling aggrieved by the Order and
decree dated 08.01.2014 passed therein, filed the present appeal.
2. Respondents herein are the claimants and a claim was made for
awarding compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of one
Somasekhar Reddy [herein after referred as ‘the deceased’], husband of
the 1st respondent, father of respondents 2 and 3, son of respondent
No.4. Compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- was awarded by the learned
MACT.
3. For the sake of convenience, parties will be hereinafter referred as
the claimants and the respondents, as and how they are arrayed in the
impugned order.
Factual sequences that pleaded by the claimants:-
4. [i] Deceased, one Soma Sekhar Reddy was aged about ’25’,
working as CNC Machine Operator in Anjusree Enterprises, Banglore,
while travelling on his motor cycle along with his wife on 13.01.2011 for
purchasing cloths for celebrating Sankranthi festival, one APSRTC
4
Metro bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 6644 [for short ‘the offending vehicle’]
driven by its driver, came in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the
motor cycle and the deceased suffered instantaneous death and his wife
suffered injuries.
[ii] A case in Cr.No.6 of 2011 for the offences under Sections
304-A, 337 IPC was registered and subsequently the driver was charge
sheeted.
[iii] The deceased is the sole bread winner for the family
earning Rs.5,873/- per month. The driver of the offending vehicle is
responsible for the accident and the vehicle being operated and
managed by the respondent-APSRTC/appellant, the respondent is liable
to pay compensation.
5. The respondent-APSRTC denied all the allegations and put the
claimants to strict proof.
6. Learned MACT upon considering the evidence covered by PWs.1
to 3, Exs.A1 to Ex.A11 and Ex.X1 to Ex.X3 and the evidence of RW.1 as
well as Ex.B1, believed the negligence of the driver of the offending
vehicle. Accepted the salary of the deceased at Rs.5,870/-, deducted
1/4th towards personal expenditure. Applying multiplier ’12’, awarded
compensation under various heads, as follows:-
5
1. Towards loss of dependency Rs.9,50,940/-
2. Towards los of consortium to the first petitioner Rs.14,060/-
3. Towards loss of love and affection towards Rs.20,000/-
petitioners 2 and 3
4. Towards loss of estate Rs.10,000/-
5. Towards funeral expenses Rs.5000/-
Total Rs.10,00,000/-
Arguments in the Appeal:-
For the appellant:-
7. (1) [i] Learned MACT erred in awarding the total compensation
claimed at Rs.10,00,000/-
[ii] Learned MACT erred in ignoring the evidence of RW.1, the
driver of the offending vehicle.
[iii] Learned MACT failed to take note the contributory
negligence on the part of the deceased.
[iv] There is no basis for accepting the income of the deceased
at Rs.5870/- by the learned MACT.
[v] Compensation awarded is excessive.
For the claimants:-
(2) [i] Learned MACT failed to add future prospects to the income
of the deceased.
[ii] Multiplier '12' as adopted by the learned MACT is incorrect.
6
[iii] Claimants are entitled for more compensation than what is
claimed and that there is no bar to award more compensation that what
is claimed as per the settled law.
8. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration is given to the
arguments advanced by the both sides.
9. The points that arise for determination in this appeal are:
1) Whether the pleaded accident, dated 13.01.2011 has
occurred owning to the exclusive rash and negligent driving of
the offending vehicle, by its driver? And whether the negligence
can be apportioned among the deceased and the driver of the
offending vehicle?
2) Whether the compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- awarded by
the learned MACT is just and reasonable? Or require any
modification either by way of reduction or enhancement? If so, to
what extent?
3) What is the result of the appeal? Point No.1:- Precedential Guidance:-
10. It is relevant to note that in view of the summary nature and mode
of enquiry contemplated under Motor Vehicles Act and social welfare
nature of legislation the Tribunal shall have holistic view with reference
to facts and circumstances of each case. It is sufficient if there is
7probability. The principle of standard of proof, beyond reasonable doubt
cannot be applied while considering a claim seeking compensation for
the death or the injury on account of road accident. The touch stone of
the case, the claimant shall have to establish is preponderance of
probability only. The legal position to this extent is settled and
consistent.
11. This Court finds it relevant to note the observations of the Hon’ble
Apex Court made in Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road
Transport Corporation1, which reads as under:
“15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a
holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that
strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular
manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The
claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of
preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond
reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said
purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the
respective stories set forth by both the parties..”
12. In a case between New India Assurance Company Ltd., Vs.
Kethavarapu Sathyavathi and Ors.2, the Hon’ble Division Bench of
High Court of Andhra Pradesh has referred to Section 168, 169 of M.V.
Act and Rule 476(7) of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules and also catena of
decisions. The point for consideration before the Hon’ble Division Bench
1
2009 (13) SCC 530
2
2009 Supreme (AP) 136=2010(2) ALD 403=2009(3) ALT 260
8
was that in holding an inquiry in terms of Motor Vehicles Act, what is the
procedure to be followed and whether the F.I.R. can be basis for
considering the claim. Observations in para 5 to 7 are as follows:
“5. Point:
Under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the
Act”), the Claims Tribunal shall give the parties an opportunity of being
heard, hold an inquiry into the claim and make an award determining just
compensation, etc. In holding any such inquiry, Section 169 of the Act
mandates the Tribunal to follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit
subject to rules. The Tribunal was conferred with the powers of a civil Court
for the specified purposes and under Rule 476 of the Rules, the Claims
Tribunal was directed to follow the procedure of summary trial as contained
in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Tribunal was cautioned not to
reject any application on the ground of any technical flaw and was also
obligated to obtain whatever information necessary from the police, medical
and other authorities. It is true that sub-rule (7) of Rule 476 of the Rules
states that the Claims Tribunal shall proceed to award the claim on the
basis of registration certificate of the motor vehicle, insurance certificate or
Policy, copy of first information report, post-mortem certificate or certificate
of inquiry from the medical officer and the nature of treatment given by the
medical Officer.
6. The said sub-rule obviously refers to the relevant dependable criteria for
assessment of the compensation, which is patently illustrative and can
never be considered to be exhaustive. This Sub-rule stating the basis to
award the claim, is obviously subject to the prohibition against depending
on any technical flaw and the procedure for summary trial to be followed by
the Tribunal. The said sub-rule cannot travel beyond the statutory obligation
imposed on the Tribunal to determine the just compensation after an
inquiry, in which an opportunity of being heard is given to the parties. The
judicial determination of the questions in controversy before the Tribunal in
terms of Sections 168 and 169 of the Act cannot be confined to
9consideration of the five documents referred to in sub-rule (7) of Rule 476
of the Rules alone and exclude any other oral or documentary evidence.
The procedure of summary trial under the Code of Criminal Procedure
which the Tribunal shall follow under Rule 476 of the Rules itself mandates
taking all such evidence as may be produced by both sides in support of
their respective versions, apart from the evidence which the Court, of its
own motion, causes to be produced as per Section 262 read with Sections
254 and 255 of the said Code. Sub-rule (7) to be understood in the light of
the object and scheme of the Act, is a directory provision referring to some
of the documents which can offer guidance to the Tribunal in discharge of
its statutory duty and the word “shall” used in the said: subrule has to be
necessarily understood as “may”.
7. That apart, to say that the, first information report alone should be the
conclusive basis for determining the manner of the accident, even in spite
of the availability of other dependable evidence on record on that aspect,
will be offending the plain language of the statute and if that were the
purport of sub-rule (7), it cannot be considered valid, as any such delegated
legislation cannot travel beyond the legislation itself .”
Evidence and Analysis:-
13. [i] One Bhuvaneswari, wife of the deceased/1st claimant is
examined as PW.1. She is an eye witness to the accident and she has
deposed in categorical terms as to occurrence of the accident.
[ii] During the cross examination, an attempt was made to
show that the deceased was not having driving licence. PW.1 asserted
that she was a pillion rider. It was suggested to her that the bus was
stopped on the left side of the road and the deceased himself, dashed
the bus in a rash and negligent manner.
10
[iii] RW.1 is the driver of the offending vehicle. He denied the
negligence and stated that the deceased came in a zig-zag manner and
hit the bus in the middle of the front side. During the cross-examination,
it was suggested to him that there was no negligence on the part of the
deceased.
[iv] Appellant relied on Ex.B1-photographs to show that the bus
was on the left side of the road. Even according to the photographs the
dead body was lying on the side of the road.
[v] What happened to the criminal case and what is the
judgment in criminal case is not known.
[vi] As per charge sheet, negligence is attributed against the
driver of the offending vehicle. As per the inquest, the offending vehicle
and the vehicle on which the deceased was travelling dashed against
the each other and it is a case of head-on collision.
[vii] PW.1- wife of the deceased is some extent of interested
witness, equally RW.1 – driver of the offending vehicle is also the
interested witness. Recitals in the complaint annexed to Ex.A1-FIR,
indicating the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.
[viii] Photographs/Ex.B1 are not confronted to PW.1, eye
witness, nor any eye witness is examined.
14. With the evidence of PW.1 and the documentary evidence
covered by Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A4-charge Sheet, the burden to prove the
11
negligence has been discharged by the claimants. The onus then
shifted to the respondent to rebut the evidence, placed by the claimants,
which respondent failed to discharge. Even according to RW.1, Ex.B1-
photographs were obtained by his department. The Photographs-Ex.B1
without any corroborating evidence, at least confronting the same to the
PW.1, cannot be of any use. Solitary oral evidence of RW.1 found not
sufficient to accept the case of appellant-APSRTC, particularly when the
same is seen in the light of the precedential guidance as to complying
probability theory in respect of appreciating the negligence and that
there is no need for claimants to prove the case beyond reasonable
doubt.
15. Upon analysis of the evidence on record, the contention of the
appellant-APSRTC that the negligence of the deceased is also cause for
the accident found not acceptable. Further, upon application of the
probability theory, particularly in the light of the crime record and in the
light of the statutory and precedential guidance referred to above vide
Rule 476(7) of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules and the observations of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Bimla Devi‘s case, India Assurance Company
Ltd.’s case [cited 2 & 3 supra] this Court concurs with the findings of the
learned MACT, on the point regarding the occurrence of accident as
attributable to the negligence of the driver of the bus. Point No.1 is
answered accordingly in favour of the claimants.
12
Point No.2:
Precedential guidance as to quantum of Compensation:
a) Adoption of Multiplier, Multiplicand and Calculation:
16. [i] Hon’ble Apex Court to have uniformity of practice and
consistency in awarding just compensation provided certain guidelines in
Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and
Anr.3 vide paragraph Nos.18 and 19, while prescribing a table directed
adoption of suitable multiplier mentioned in column No.4 of the table. As
per the observations in the judgment the claimants have to establish the
following:
1. Age of the deceased.
2. Income of the deceased.
3. Number of dependents.
[ii] Hon’ble Apex Court directed certain steps while determining
the compensation, they are:
Step No.1:
Ascertain the multiplicand, which shall be the income of the
deceased he / she should have contributed to the dependents and the
same can be arrived after deducting certain part of personal living
expenses of the deceased.
Step No.2:
3
2009 (6) SCC 121
13Ascertaining Multiplier with reference to the age of the deceased.
This shall be with reference to the table provided in judgment itself.
Step No.3:
Calculation of the compensation.
Final Step:
After calculation adding of certain amount towards conventional
heads towards loss of estate, loss of consortium, funeral expenditure,
cost of transport, cost of medical expenses for treatment of the
deceased before the death etc. are advised.
b) Adding of future prospects:
17. [i]. Enhancing the scope for awarding just compensation, the
Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay
Sethi and Others4 case guided for adding of future prospect. In respect
of permanent employment, 50% where the deceased is below 40 years,
30% where the deceased is 40-50 years and 15% where the deceased
is 50-60 years.
[ii] The actual salary to be taken shall be after deducting taxes.
Further, in respect of self employed on fixed salary addition is
recommended, at 40% for the deceased below 40 years, at 25% where
the deceased is between 40-50 years, at 10% where the deceased is
between 50-60 years. Further, adding of compensation for loss of
4
2017(16) SCC 680
14
estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses at Rs.15,000/- and
Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively is recommended by Hon’ble
Apex court with an addition of 10% for every three years in Pranay
Sethi‘s case.
c) Loss of Consortium under the heads of parental and filial
consortium:
18. Further enlarging the scope for awarding just and reasonable
compensation in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu
Ram and Others5, Hon’ble Apex Court observed that compensation can
be awarded under the heads of loss of consortium not only to the spouse
but also to the children and parents under the heads of parental and filial
consortium.
d) Just Compensation:
19. In Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others6, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in para Nos.10 and 11 made relevant observations, they
are as follows:
10. Whether the Tribunal is competent to award compensation
in excess of what is claimed in the application under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is another issue arising
for consideration in this case. At para 10 of Nagappa
case [Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 274 : 2003
SCC (Cri) 523 : AIR 2003 SC 674] , it was held as follows:
(SCC p. 280)
5
(2018) 18 SCC 130
6
(2013) 9 SCC 54
15“10. Thereafter, Section 168 empowers the Claims Tribunal
to ‘make an award determining the amount of compensation
which appears to it to be just’. Therefore, the only requirement
for determining the compensation is that it must be ‘just’. There
is no other limitation or restriction on its power for awarding
just compensation.”
The principle was followed in the later decisions in Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Nasir [(2009) 6 SCC 280 : (2009)
2 SCC (Civ) 877 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 987] and
in Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2009) 13
SCC 710 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 241 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1213]
11. Underlying principle discussed in the above decisions is
with regard to the duty of the court to fix a just compensation
and it has now become settled law that the court should not
succumb to niceties or technicalities, in such matters. Attempt
of the court should be to equate, as far as possible, the misery
on account of the accident with the compensation so that the
injured/the dependants should not face the vagaries of life on
account of the discontinuance of the income earned by the
victim.”
Factual position and Analysis of Evidence :-
20. [i] As per the evidence of PW.1, the deceased was an
employee. It was suggested that the deceased was in private
employment and that Rs.1501/- is fixed as pension. It was also
suggested to her that income at Rs.6000/- claimed by her is incorrect.
[ii] PW.2-S.R.Paramesh, is Manager of the Company where
the deceased was working as Machine operator and he has stated the
salary of the deceased is Rs.5870/- with reference to Ex.A7/Salary
Certificate issued by the Firm. He has also referred the Attendance
register and the Wages Register of the deceased covered by Ex.X2 and
X3.
16
[iii] PW.3, who working in the concerned way where the
deceased worked, stated that the deceased was getting Rs.5873/- per
month. The evidence of PW.2 and 3 coupled with documentary
evidence are found sufficient to accept that the deceased was drawing a
salary of Rs.5873/-. No error can be found in the findings of the learned
MACT as to adopting income, at Rs.5870/-. Learned MACT had
adopted multiplier ’12’ while accepting the age of the deceased at ’25’.
[iv] As per the Post Mortem Certificate and inquest report, the
age of the deceased is ’25’. Adoption of multiplier ’12’ is found incorrect
and multiplier ’18’ is to be adopted. The deduction of 1/4 th towards
personal expenditure taking note of 4 dependents found fit for
confirmation. Towards future prospects, 30% of the income can be
added.
[v] Then income of the deceased is [5870x 12] Rs.70,440/- p.a.
On adding 30% future prospects comes to Rs.91,572/-p.a. 1/4th of the
same, if deducted towards personal expenditure, the contribution of
deceased to the claimants comes to Rs.68,679/-. Therefore,
multiplicand is Rs. 68,679/- and Multiplier is ’18’. Then the entitlement of
the claimants under the head of loss of dependency is [68679x 18]
Rs.12,36,222/-.
[vi] Further the compensation awarded under funeral
expenditure and loss of estate etc., also require modification, in tune with
17
the guidelines under Sara Verma and Pranay Sethi’s cases [cited
supra].
21. In the light of the evidence on record and in view of the
precedential guidance, the entitlement of the claimants for reasonable
compensation in comparison to the compensation awarded by the
learned MACT is as follows:
Head Compensation Fixed by this
awarded by the Court
MACT
1. Loss of Dependency Rs.9,50,940/- Rs. 12,36,222/-
2. Loss of Consortium Rs.14,060/- Rs.1,60,000/-
[@Rs.40,000/- each X 4]
[+] Rs.20,000/-
[Loss of Love and
Affection ]
3. Funeral expenses Rs.5,000/- Rs.15,000/-
4. Loss of estate Rs.10,000/- Rs.15,000/-
5. Total compensation Rs.10,00,000/- Rs.14,26,222 /-
awarded
22. Whether the compensation can be enhanced in the absence of an
appeal or cross appeal by the claimant is the next question. The legal
position as to powers of the Appellate Court particularly while dealing
with an appeal in terms of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
where the award passed by the learned MACT under challenge at the
instance of the Insurance Company (Respondents) and bar or
prohibition if any to enhance the quantum of compensation and awarding
just and reasonable compensation, even in the absence of any appeal or
18
cross objections was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in a
case between National Insurance Company Limited vs. E.
Suseelamma and others7 in M.A.C.M.A. No.945 of 2013, while
answering point No.3 framed therein vide, para 50 of the judgment,
which reads as follows:
“50. In our considered view, the claimant/respondents are
entitled for just compensation and if on the face of the award or
even in the light of the evidence on record, and keeping in view
the settled legal position regarding the claimants being entitled to
just compensation and it also being the statutory duty of the
Court/Tribunal to award just compensation, this Court in the
exercise of the appellate powers can enhance the amount of
compensation even in the absence of appeal or cross-objection
by the claimants.”
23. Observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in National
Insurance Company Limited vs. E. Suseelamma and others (12
supra) case are in compliance with the observations of Hon’ble Apex
Court in Surekha and Others vs. Santosh and Others8.
24. In Surekha and Others vs. Santosh and Others case (8 supra), in
Civil Appeal No.476 of 2020 vide judgment dated 21.01.2020, three
judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “it is well stated that
in the matter of Insurance claim compensation in reference to the motor
accident, the Court should not take hyper technical approach and ensure
that just compensation is awarded to the affected person or the
7
2023 SCC Online AP 1725
8
(2021) 16 SCC 467
19
claimants”. While addressing a case where the High Court has declined
to grant enhancement on the ground that the claimants fail to file cross
appeal above observations are made.
25. The legal position with regard to awarding more compensation
than what claimed has been considered and settled by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court holding that there is no bar for awarding more
compensation than what is claimed. For the said preposition of law, this
Court finds it proper to refer the following observations of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court made in:
(1) Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others9, at para 21 of the
judgment, that –
“..there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award
compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function
of the Tribunal/Court is to award “just” compensation, which is
reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record.”
(2) Kajal Vs. Jagadish Chand and Ors.10 at para 33 of the
judgment, as follows:-
“33. We are aware that the amount awarded by us is more than the
amount claimed. However, it is well settled law that in the motor
accident claim petitions, the Court must award the just
compensation and, in case, the just compensation is more than the
amount claimed, that must be awarded especially where the
claimant is a minor.”
9
(2003) 2 SCC 274
10
2020 (04) SCC 413
20
(3) Ramla and Others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited
and Others11 at para 5 of the judgment, as follows:-
“5. Though the claimants had claimed a total compensation of Rs 25,00,000
in their claim petition filed before the Tribunal, we feel that the compensation
which the claimants are entitled to is higher than the same as mentioned
supra. There is no restriction that the Court cannot award compensation
exceeding the claimed amount, since the function of the Tribunal or Court
under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to award “just
compensation”. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare
legislation. A “just compensation” is one which is reasonable on the basis of
evidence produced on record. It cannot be said to have become time-barred.
Further, there is no need for a new cause of action to claim an enhanced
amount. The courts are duty-bound to award just compensation.”
26. For the aforestated reasons and the precedential guidance
referred above, it is found that the claimants are entitled for
compensation of Rs. 14,26,222/- and the impugned Award and Decree
dated 08.01.2014 required to be modified to that extent. Accordingly,
point No.2 is answered.
Point No.3:
27. In the result, appeal is dismissed.
[i] However, the compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest
@7.5% p.a. awarded by the learned MACT under the impugned decree
and order dated 08.01.2014 is modified and enhanced to Rs.14,26,222/-
11
(2019) 2 SCC 192
21
with interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of
realization.
Apportionment:
[ii] The apportionment of compensation among the claimants 1 to 4
shall be in proportion to the ratio adopted by the learned MACT.
[iii] The claimants/petitioners shall pay the Court fee in respect of
enhanced part of compensation, before the learned MACT.
[iii] The claimants/petitioners are entitled to withdraw the
compensation amount at once, on deposit.
[iv] No costs in the facts and circumstances.
[v] Time for depositing the balance compensation amount is two (02)
months.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal
shall stand closed.
____________________________
A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, JDate: 22.08.2025
Pnr
22THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A No.686 of 2015
22.08. 2025Pnr