Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Macharla Lakshmi Kanthamma And 4 Others vs Chagarlamudi Suresh Babu And Another on 2 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI
****
M.A.C.M.A.No. 1445 of 2006
Between:
1. Macharla Lakshmi Kanthamma,
W/o.Ramalingachari(late), Hindu, Aged 36 years,
Occupation Household Duties, R/o.Pratibhabharathi
Colony, Murapaka Post, Laveru Mandal, Srikakulam
District.
2. Macharla Madhusudhana Rao, S/o.Ramalingachari(late),
Aged about 14 years, Occupation Student,
R/o.Pratibhabharathi Colony, Murapaka Post, Laveru
Mandal, Srikakulam District, being minor rep. by his next
friend and Mother 1st appellant R/o.Pratibhabharathi
Colony, Murapaka Post, Laveru Mandal, Srikakulam
District.
3. Macharla Santhosh Siva Kumar, S/o.Ramalingachari(late),
Aged about 12 years, Occupation Student,
R/o.Pratibhabharathi Colony, Murapaka Post, Laveru
Mandal, Srikakulam District, being minor rep. by his next
friend and Mother 1st appellant R/o.Pratibhabharathi
Colony, Murapaka Post, Laveru Mandal, Srikakulam
District.
4. Macharla Lakshmi, W/o.Late Gangaraju, Hindu, aged 70
years, No Work, R/o.P.B.Nagar Colony, Murapaka Post,
Srikakulam District.
5. Macharla Kanchanamala, D/o.Late Gangaraju,
aged about 25 years, Household Duties,
R/o.Pratibhabharathi Colony, Murapaka Post, Laveru
Mandal, Srikakulam District. ... Appellants
And
1. Chagarlamudi Suresh Babu, S/o.Bhaskararao,
Owner of the lorry bearing No.AP 7 V 545, aged 40 years,
R/o.D.No.5-49/1, Nidamanuru Village, Vijayawada Post,
Krishna District.
2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Rep.by its Divisional Manager, Dwarakanagar,
Visakhapatnam. ... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 02.01.2023
2
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
3
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
+ M.A.C.M.A.No.1445 of 2006
% 02.01.2023
Between:
1. Macharla Lakshmi Kanthamma,
W/o.Ramalingachari(late), Hindu, Aged 36 years,
Occupation Household Duties, R/o.Pratibhabharathi
Colony, Murapaka Post, Laveru Mandal, Srikakulam
District.
2. Macharla Madhusudhana Rao, S/o.Ramalingachari(late),
Aged about 14 years, Occupation Student,
R/o.Pratibhabharathi Colony, Murapaka Post, Laveru
Mandal, Srikakulam District, being minor rep. by his next
friend and Mother 1st appellant R/o.Pratibhabharathi
Colony, Murapaka Post, Laveru Mandal, Srikakulam
District.
3. Macharla Santhosh Siva Kumar, S/o.Ramalingachari(late),
Aged about 12 years, Occupation Student,
R/o.Pratibhabharathi Colony, Murapaka Post, Laveru
Mandal, Srikakulam District, being minor rep. by his next
friend and Mother 1st appellant R/o.Pratibhabharathi
Colony, Murapaka Post, Laveru Mandal, Srikakulam
District.
4. Macharla Lakshmi, W/o.Late Gangaraju, Hindu, aged 70
years, No Work, R/o.P.B.Nagar Colony, Murapaka Post,
Srikakulam District.
5. Macharla Kanchanamala, D/o.Late Gangaraju,
aged about 25 years, Household Duties,
R/o.Pratibhabharathi Colony, Murapaka Post, Laveru
Mandal, Srikakulam District. ... Appellants
And
1. Chagarlamudi Suresh Babu, S/o.Bhaskararao,
Owner of the lorry bearing No.AP 7 V 545, aged 40 years,
R/o.D.No.5-49/1, Nidamanuru Village, Vijayawada Post,
Krishna District.
2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Rep.by its Divisional Manager, Dwarakanagar,
Visakhapatnam. ... Respondents
4
! Counsel for Appellants : Sri A.Ramarao
^ Counsel for 2nd Respondent : Sri G.Srinivasu
< 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:
5
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
M.A.C.M.A.No. 1445 of 2006
JUDGMENT:
This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), has been filed by the appellants/claimants challenging the Judgment and Award dated 16.02.2006 delivered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, (hereinafter referred to as „the Tribunal") in M.V.O.P.No.146 of 2001 whereby, the claimants have been awarded the compensation of Rs.3,80,000/- directing the 2nd respondent/Insurer to pay the awarded amount with running interest at 7.5% per annum 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 36 year old Ramalingachari was a Junior Assistant in the Office of Deputy Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Srikakulam. At the time of his death, the deceased was drawing 6 a monthly gross salary of Rs.4,875/-. On 04.09.2000 at about 9.00 p.m., the deceased was proceedings on his Scooter bearing No.AHV 8929 towards his village Murapaka from Srikakulam and when he reached near Koyyarallu junction, the offending lorry bearing No.AP 7V 545 driven by its driver very rash and negligent manner endangering the human life, and dashed against the double bullock cart and later hit the deceased, as a result, he received severe injuries and died instantaneously. The matter was reported to the police alleging that the accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving of the said offending vehicle by its driver and based on the FIR lodged by P.Nageswara Rao, a case in Crime No.157 of 2000 of Etcherla Police Station, Srikakulam District, for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 IPC was registered. After investigation of the case, a charge sheet was submitted against the accused driver of the offending lorry for having committed the offences under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 IPC.
b) The 1st petitioner is the wife, the 2nd and 3rd petitioners are the sons, the 4th petitioner is the mother and the 5th petitioner is the sister of the deceased - Ramalingachari. They filed the petition claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srikakulam, on account of the 7 death of the deceased-Ramalingachari in the said road traffic accident.
c) Before the Tribunal, Respondent No.1-owner of the offending vehicle did not contest the matter. The 2nd respondent- Insurance Company filed counter contending inter alia that the insurer would take all relevant and necessary pleas at the appropriate time. The petitioners are put to strict proof that the driver of the offending vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased due to which, he died on the spot. Further, it was contended that the petitioners are put to strict proof that the offending lorry bearing No.AP 7V 545 is having a policy at the time of the accident. Further pleaded that the amount of compensation claimed by the petitioners in the claim petition is highly excessive and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
(d) Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
(1) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver of the 1st respondent?
(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to recover the compensation, and, if so, what amount of compensation and from, which of the respondents?
(3) To what relief?8
(e) During the trial, in order to establish their claim, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1, P.Nageswara Rao, who lodged the complaint intimating about the accident to the police, was examined as P.W.2, and M.V.Ramanabhatlu, who was working as Junior Assistant and who produced pay certificate and service register of the deceased, was examined as P.W.3 and Exs.A.1 to A.10 and Ex.B.1 were got marked on behalf of the 2nd respondent by consent. No oral evidence was adduced and except Ex.B.1, no documents were marked on behalf of the respondents at the Tribunal.
(f) On appreciation of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and Exs.A.1 to A10 and Ex.B1, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing No.AP 7V 545 by its driver and passed impugned Award granting compensation of Rs.3,80,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum with proportionate costs against the 2nd respondent.
(g) On appreciation of evidence, the following compensation was awarded by the Tribunal by applying the multiplier „12‟.
S.No. Heads of compensation Amount of compensation awarded 1 Pecuniary compensation Rs.3,60,000/- was awarded as mentioned in the Award towards pecuniary Rs.2,500 x 12 x 12 = compensation.
Rs.3,60,000/-
92 Funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- was awarded towards Transport funeral expenses and transport 3 Consortium Rs.15,000/- was awarded towards consortium in favour of the 1st petitioner Total Rs.3,80,000/-
(h) Aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with the said award the claimants, being the appellants preferred the present appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit that considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal ought to have awarded higher compensation. It was submitted that the income of the deceased was taken on the lower side which ultimately resulted in granting lesser compensation. It is further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the gross salary while awarding the compensation, but the net salary drawn by the deceased was taken into consideration. It was further argued that the learned Tribunal committed an error in not awarding the compensation under various conventional heads resulting in prejudice to the case of the appellants. In support of the prayer for enhancement, the learned counsel placed the judgments of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the cases of Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi. Therefore, the figures and multiplier applied by the Tribunal were not justified and warrant interference of this Court by enhancing the 10 compensation on the account of loss of dependency, and future prospects, by applying the multiplier „15‟ and loss of estate, loss of consortium, and funeral expenses etc.
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 viz., loss of estate, consortium and funeral expenses and have made out any case for enhancement of compensation ?"
7. POINT Nos.1 & 2: Considered the submissions of learned counsels representing the parties, perused and assessed the entire evidence including the exhibited documents. A perusal of the impugned judgment would show that the Tribunal has framed Issue No.1 as to whether the accident occurred due to 11 the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, to which the Tribunal after considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 coupled with the documentary evidence had categorically observed in Para-10 of the judgment that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing No.AP 7V 545 and has answered in favour of the claimants and against the respondents/Opponents. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing No.AP 7V 545 and further observed that, as per Ex.B.1, the offending vehicle was covered with the Insurance Policy by the date of the accident.
8. The Tribunal, while assessing the compensation payable to the claimants, took into consideration the last pay certificate- Ex.A.9 and copy of the Service Register-Ex.A.10 of the deceased which show that the monthly gross salary last drawn by the deceased was Rs.4,875/-. By the date of the accident i.e., 04.09.2000, he was working as a Junior Assistant in the Office of Deputy Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Srikakulam. A perusal of Ex.A.10-copy of the service register, would show that the date of birth of the deceased is 01.06.1964 and therefore, by 12 the date of death of the deceased, he was aged about 36 years 3 months. Since the deceased was a salaried employee, and he was between the age group of 36 to 40 years, 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. The Tribunal committed an error in not taking the gross salary of the deceased and calculated on the basis of net salary of Rs.2,500/-.
9. The decision rendered in National Insurance Company Vs. Birender1, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India has observed in para-19, 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, in light of the dictum of the Constitution Bench of this court in paragraph 59.3 of Pranay Sethi (supra)."
10. 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:
1
(2020) 11 SCC 356 2 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) 13 "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."
11. In view of the principles laid down in Birender and Pranay Sethi cases (supra), the Tribunal has to take the actual (gross salary less tax) of the deceased into consideration for determining the compensation amount.
12. Undisputedly, the deceased was working as a Junior Assistant at the time of his death. He was a permanent employee in Panchayat Raj Department. He was between the age group 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.
13. 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 3 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 14 the Tribunal to arrive at the 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.
14. The Tribunal committed an error in making the deductions for the personal and living expenses of the deceased. Evidently, the deceased was survived by his wife, two children (sons), mother and sister. Therefore, the number of his dependent family members was „5‟. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra) has held that the deduction towards personal and living expenses should be 1/4th. Observation of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in 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."
15. As per the above decision, the actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have 15 taken into consideration the actual salary by applying the multiplier as per Sarla Verma's case.
16. As such, 1/4th of his income for personal and living expenses has to be deducted, since the number of dependent family members was „5‟. The Tribunal should have deducted 1/4th of his income for personal and living expenses.
17. As per the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma (supra) the loss of dependency is thus re-assessed as under.
21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M- 14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.
18. The monthly gross income as per his Last Pay Certificate/Exs.A.6 and A.9 issued by Deputy Executive Engineer, is Rs.4,875/-. Thus, the annual income would be Rs.58,500/-. After adding 50% towards future prospects for assessment of his income, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), it would be Rs.87,750/- (Rs.58,500 + Rs.29,250).
16
19. As per Sarla Verma's case (supra), after deducting 1/4th of the said amount for personal and living expenses of the deceased, his annual income would be Rs.65,812.50 ps (Rs.87,750 - Rs.21,937.50 ps). 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 36 to 40 years, the Multiplier is „15‟ ). Since the age of the deceased is 36 years at the time of the accident, the multiplier applicable is „15‟. Having applied the said multiplier of „15‟, loss of dependency would be Rs.9,87,187.50 ps (Rs.65,812.50 ps x 15), which is rounded to Rs.9,87,187/-. Thus, Rs.9,87,187/- would be a substantive dependency to which the claimants are entitled to. This Court finds that the Tribunal has not awarded appropriate compensation towards future prospects of loss of dependency. A reading of the Tribunal‟s award, makes it appear that the Tribunal‟s approach does not accord at all with current judicial opinion.
20. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.9,87,187/- under the head of loss of dependency.
21. In Pranay Sethi's case (supra), the Constitution Bench held in death cases that the compensation would be awarded 17 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:
22. 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:
23. 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:
24. 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 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 4 2018 ACJ 2782 (SC) 18 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."
19
25. Pursuant 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 his wife and the 4th appellant being his mother are also entitled to the consortium of Rs.40,000/- each. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the appellants 1 to 4 are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of the consortium.
26. The said amounts awarded for loss of consortium will be as per the amount fixed in Pranay Sethi (supra) as recognized only three conventional heads under which the compensation can be awarded viz., loss of estate, loss of consortium, and funeral expenses. There is no justification to award compensation for loss of love and affection as a separate head.
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 20 not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit."
28. 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. 9,87,187.00
2. Loss of Estate ...... Rs. 15,000.00
3. Funeral Expenses ...... Rs. 15,000.00
4. Loss of Consortium
To the wife, two
Children and mother
Of the deceased 40,000 x 4 ...... Rs. 1,60,000.00
---------------------
Total ...... Rs. 11,77,187.00
(-) Compensation awarded
By the Tribunal shown in
Para 3(g) ..... Rs. 3,80,000.00
---------------------
Enhanced amount ...... Rs. 7,97,187.00
---------------------
29. As per the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and others5, under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only upto the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case, where from the evidence brought on record, if Tribunal- 5 (2003) 2 SCC 274 21 Court considers that claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such an award. There is no embargo to award compensation more than that claimed by the claimant. Rather it is obligatory for the Tribunal and Court to award "just compensation", even if it is in the excess of the amount claimed. The Tribunals are expected to make an award by determining the amount of compensation that should appear to be just and proper. The compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, against the background of the facts and circumstances of the case, is not just and reasonable, and the claimants are entitled to more compensation, as per the decisions cited supra, though they might not have claimed the same at the time of filing of the claim petition.
30. It is seen that, at the time of filing the claim petition as well as the appeal, the 2nd & 3rd appellants were minors and were represented by their mother/1st appellant as guardian. Now, they would have attained the majority. As such, the 2nd & 3rd appellants can be directed to file appropriate petitions before the Claims Tribunal to declare them as majors and after declaring them as majors and discharging their mother/1st appellant from guardianship, the 2nd & 3rd appellants are 22 permitted to withdraw their entire share of compensation amount with accrued interest.
31. 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.3,80,000/- to Rs.11,77,187/-.
32. In the result, the appeal is allowed, enhancing the compensation from a sum of Rs.3,80,000/- to Rs.11,77,187/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum and costs from the date of the petition till the date of deposit, payable by the 1st & 2nd respondents jointly and severally.
(ii) 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.
(iii) The appellants/claimants shall pay the requisite Court-fee in respect of the enhanced amount awarded over and above the compensation claimed.
(iv) The appellants 1 to 3 shall be entitled to an equal share of compensation.
(v) The 1st appellant/1st claimant is permitted to withdraw her share of compensation with accrued interest. The 23 2nd & 3rd appellants/2nd & 3rd claimants are directed to file appropriate petitions before the Claims Tribunal to declare them as majors and after declaring them as majors and discharging their mother/1st appellant from the guardianship, the 2nd & 3rd appellants are permitted to withdraw their entire share of compensation amount with accrued interest.
(vi) The impugned award of the learned Tribunal stands modified to the aforesaid extent and in the terms and directions as above.
(vii) As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending for consideration, if any, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA Date: 02.01.2023 L.R.Copy to be marked Mjl/* 24 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA M.A.C.M.A.No. 1445 of 2006 02.01.2023 L.R.Copy to be marked Mjl/*