APHC010200642022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] THURSDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 290/2022 Between: 1. CHALLA SURYANARAYANA,, S/O.VENKANNA, AGE 56 YEARS, R/O D.NO.2-127, CULTIVATION, KANURU AGRAHARAM VILLAGE, PERAVALI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. CHALLA ADI LAKSHMI,, W/O.SURYANARAYANA, HOUSE WIFE, AGE 47 YEARS, RIO D.NO.2-127, KANURU AGRAHARAM VILLAGE, PERAVALI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. CHALLA NAGA SATYANARAYANA,, S/O.SURYANARAYANA, AGE 22 YEARS, R/O D.NO.2-127, KANURU AGRAHARAM VILLAGE, PERAVALI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. 4CHALLA SAI,, S/O. SURYANARAYANA, AGE 17 YEARS, R/O D.NO.2- 127, KANURU AGRAHARAM VILLAGE, PERAVALI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS (BEING MINOR, THE 4TH PETITIONER IS REPRESENTED BY HIS NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL GUARDIAN WHO IS THE FATHER OF HIM I.E., I PETITIONER HEREIN) ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. BADAM LAKSHAMANA RAO, S/O.VEERA VENKATA RAO, AGE 30 YEARS, DRIVER OF BOLERO TRUCK BEARING NO. AP 37 TD 2167, R/O D.NO.4-31, AKKINA VARI STREET, TADIPARRU VILLAGE, UNDRAJAVARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. PUNNAM VAMSHA VARDAN, S/O.NARASITNHA MURTHY, OWNER OF BOLERO TRUCK BEARING NO. AP 37 TD 2167, R/O. D.NO.2- 122.1, POST OFFICE STREET, KANURU AGRAHARAM VILLAGE, PERAVALI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, TADEPALLIGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toAggrieved by the award and decree dated 08.12.2021 in MVOP No. 62 of 2017 on the file of MACT cum IV Additional District Judge West Godavari District at Tanuku IA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, teh Hon'ble Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 81 days in representing MACMA 290 of 2022 IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to declare the 4th petitioner herein as major as major and consequently discharge the 1st petitioner as guardian of the 4th petitioner and grant leave to proceed on his own and pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. A VEERASWAMY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A VEERASWAMY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A JAYANTHI 2. The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:290/2022 JUDGMENT: Present appeal is preferred under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act assailing order dated 08.12.2021 passed in M.V.O.P. No.62/2017 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – IV Additional District Judge, West Godavari District at Tanuku, rejecting the claim for compensation. 2. Parties herein will be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the present case in a nutshell are as follows: (a) Claimants are father, mother and siblings of the deceased. They have instituted claim under Section 166 of MV Act seeking compensation of ₹14,85,000/- on account of death of Ms.Veera Veni, daughter of claimants 1 and 2. It is pleaded that while deceased, on 22.12.2016, was sweeping the front yard at their residence, during evening hours at about 05.00 p.m., the 1st respondent drove Bolero Truck bearing No.AP 37TD 2167 in rash and negligent manner and hit her, causing serious injuries. She was immediately shifted to hospital for treatment, where she 2 CGR, J MACMA. No.290 of 2022 underwent treatment and was discharged on 22.01.2017. Later, as she developed complications, she was yet again readmitted on 09.03.2017 and was treated till 17.03.2017. She, later passed away on 24.03.2017. The said incident stated to have been reported to police on 24.03.2017, who registered FIR vide Cr.No.55 of 2017 for offence under Section 338 IPC. As the victim later succumbed, the offence came to be altered to that of 304(A) of IPC. Police stated to have investigated into the crime and filed charge sheet against driver of offending truck. (b) The deceased stated to be aged 26 years and used to earn ₹7,500/- per month as lace worker. She was also hearing and speech impaired and was unmarried on the date of accident. Basing on aforesaid narrated facts, claim was laid for ₹14,85,000/-. (c) Respondents 1 and 2, who are driver and owner of offending vehicle remained ex parte. 3rd respondent insurer filed written statement denying the manner in which accident occurred and further that the 1st respondent was rash and negligent in causing the accident. Besides denying the allegations of claimants, denied the age and income of the deceased. Based on aforesaid pleadings, Tribunal has framed following issues: 3 CGR, J MACMA. No.290 of 2022 1. Whether the death of the deceased Veera Veni caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of vehicle bearing No.AP 37TD 2167 or not? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation from the respondent No.1 to No.3 or not? 3. To what relief? (d) In order to prove the case of claimants, 1st claimant came to be examined as P.W.1, and doctor, who treated deceased as P.W.2 and eyewitness to the incident as P.W.3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9 and Ex.X1. For 3rd respondent, its officer was examined as R.W.1 and got marked Ex.R1 policy. The Tribunal, on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, has come to conclusion that the claimants have failed to establish that the accident has occurred on 22.12.2016 causing injuries to the victim and further that the delay in reporting the incident to police raised cloud on the claim that accident has occurred, therefore, disbelieving the version of claimants, held 1st issue in negative. The Tribunal, in the process, has also come to conclusion that there is no proximity between the accident and cause of death. Accordingly, rejected the claim for compensation. Since the occurrence of accident and the death being on account of such accident were negatived, the Tribunal refrained from embarking on 2nd issue. e) Assailing the same, present appeal is preferred. 4 CGR, J MACMA. No.290 of 2022 4. (a) Learned counsel for appellants contended that the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the claim for the reason that the FIR came to be lodged belatedly after occurrence of accident, mere delay in lodging FIR would not be fatal and detrimental for instituting claim. In support of the said submission, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ravi v. Badrinarayan and others1. (b) He further contended that the evidence on record, in particular, Ex.X1 - wound certificate and Ex.X9 – discharge summaries, dated 22.01.2017 and 17.03.2017, when clearly indicate the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment availed by the deceased, the cause for such injuries as claimed to be on account of the accident occurred on 22.12.2016, which was also substantiated by way of evidence such as Exs.P1, P2 and P6, the Tribunal ought not to have come to conclusion that there is no proximity between the accident and the cause of the death. Therefore, the said finding and conclusion are clearly perverse. (c) He further contended that the deceased was working as lace worker and earning about ₹7,500/- per month and that she was 1 (2011) 4 SCC 693 5 CGR, J MACMA. No.290 of 2022 aged 26 years as can be seen from the postmortem report, therefore, considering the same, the claimants are entitled for just and fair compensation. In support of said submission, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunita & Ors v. Vinod Singh & Ors2, wherein income of housewife came to be considered as ₹5,000/- per month. Therefore, at least the victim is required to be assessed with the income of ₹5,000/- per month. 5. (a) Opposing aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for respondent - Insurer tried to support the impugned order by contending that the Tribunal, on proper appreciation of the evidence on record, in particular that of P.Ws.1 and 3 and also the documentary evidence, has rightly come to conclusion that there is no proximity between the accident and cause of death and besides the delay in lodging of FIR clearly doubted the occurrence of accident. Aforesaid findings recorded by Tribunal do not suffer from any infirmity nor said to be perverse. Therefore, the appeal requires to be rejected. 2 2025 LawSuit (SC) 385 = 2025 INSC 366 6 CGR, J MACMA. No.290 of 2022 (b) He further contended that even as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ravi’s case1, it has been stated that in cases of delay, the courts are required to examine the evidence available on record with closer scrutiny to assess as to whether there is any indication of fabrication or the case has been concocted or engineered to gain advantage, the evidence on record in particular that of P.Ws.1 and 3 since being clearly inconsistent with each other, the case clearly falls under the exception laid down therein, therefore, as the delay is not demonstrably satisfactory with cogent reasons, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim. (c) He further submitted that the cause of death clearly was not on the count of accident, which clearly is evident from the discharge summary marked under Ex.P9, recorded that the victim was discharged from hospital only after she recovered, therefore, clearly there is no evidence to show that death was on account of the injuries suffered, even if any. (d) While coming to the quantum of compensation, learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance 7 CGR, J MACMA. No.290 of 2022 Insurance Company Limited3, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court computed the income of coolie as ₹4,500/- per month, therefore, he contended to adopt the same even in the present case. 6. Perused the record and considered rival submissions. 7. Based on the contentions raised above, following questions would fall for consideration of this Court: (i) Whether the findings rendered by Tribunal, more particularly that delay in registration of FIR would be fatal to entertain present claim and further, whether there was any proximity between accident and cause of death? (ii) If the aforesaid question is answered in sustaining claim, what is the just and fair compensation payable to the claimants in the facts and circumstances of the case? (iii) To what relief? Point No.(i): 8. The accident stated to have occurred on 22.12.2016 at about 05.00 p.m.. As per evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3, the injured was taken to hospital for treatment immediately and got admitted on same day. The victim underwent treatment till 22.01.2017 and was discharged. Ex.X9 consists of discharge summary dated 3 (2011) 13 SCC 236 8 CGR, J MACMA. No.290 of 2022 22.01.2017. Later, she was yet again admitted on 09.03.2017 and got discharged on 17.03.2017. The wound certificate is marked as Ex.X1 and discharge summaries dated 22.01.2017 and 17.03.2017 are marked as Ex.X9. As per the aforesaid medical certificates, the nature of injuries are as follows: “Wound Certificate dated 23.12.2016: Type of Injuries: Perforation of Stomach + Gangrene Bowel, Hemoperitoneum. # Rt Ribs # Pelvis Poly trauma Discharge Summary dated 22.01.2017: Principal Diagnosis: Laceration of stomach, 2 feet gangrene filum, splenic laceration, mesenteric tear, hemoperitoneum, left lower ribs fracture and bilateral pubic rami fractures. Operative Procedures: Repair of lacerated stomach, resection of gangrenous bowel end to end anastomosis and mesenteric tear repair, c/o. Multiple joint pains, pain abdomen, distributive shock with decreased bowel movements & breathlessness. Discharge Summary dated 17.03.2017: Chief Complaints: Old case of Polytrauma with burst abdomen and fracture of Right femur presented with history of sudden onset of one episode of convulsion (GTCS), pain the limb and back (bed sore), constipation since two days.” 9. The aforesaid documentary evidence and also the evidence of P.W.2, who treated the injured, explained the nature of injuries 9 CGR, J MACMA. No.290 of 2022 and they seem to be serious and grievous in nature. Coming back to the manner in which accident has occurred, the claimants stated that injured was hit by Bolero Truck driven by 1st respondent. The incident, however, came to be reported to police on 24.03.2017, who registered FIR for offence under Section 338 IPC. Immediately on the next day, the injured succumbed, so, offence mentioned in the FIR came to be altered to that of 304(A) IPC. Police have investigated into the crime and laid charge sheet. To prove that accident had occurred, P.W.1 spoke of the same, besides P.W.3 as well, who stated to be eyewitness residing in the neighbourhood. The same witnesses were also shown as L.Ws.1 and 3 in the charge sheet. Besides, there are other eyewitnesses who spoke about the accident, such as L.Ws.4, 5 and 6. Except that the incident came to be reported belatedly with delay, nothing has been pleaded by the Insurer to suggest that the claim set up before Tribunal was based on fabricated, concocted and engineered documents to gain advantage. 10. On the other hand, the evidence of R.W.1, the officer of Insurer, in his chief examination stated that the deceased was sweeping in front of the house without taking any precautions, therefore, was equally negligent by contributing to the accident, 10 CGR, J MACMA. No.290 of 2022 had she taken sufficient precautions could have averted the occurrence of accident. Even in the cross-examination, R.W.1 has admitted that post accident, the deceased was admitted to the hospital at Tanuku. 11. To test as to whether the accident occurred in the first instance and if so, the deceased sustained any injuries before she was taken to hospital, aforesaid evidence has to be evaluated. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 and R.W.1, in particular, the admissions made by R.W.1 himself go to show that they are not in dispute with the occurrence of accident, inasmuch as specific plea was taken that the deceased was equally negligent in causing the accident and further, he went to the extent of stating that immediately after accident, the victim was taken to hospital. Meaning thereby the occurrence of accident, cause of injuries and admitting into hospital are, in a way, clearly admitted by the evidence of insurer. They, in their written statement, have been denying the aforesaid aspect in general, however, by introducing their own witness the occurrence of accident and victim being taken to hospital came to be clearly admitted. As claim is instituted by claimants, it is for them to first show that the accident has occurred causing injuries. The evidence in Ex.P1, Ex.P2, which are FIRs, Ex.P5 – Motor Vehicle 11 CGR, J MACMA. No.290 of 2022 Inspectors Report and Ex.P.6 – charge sheet sufficiently addressed the aspect of occurrence of the accident. Further the said evidence also demonstrated that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving by 1st respondent. As in cases falling under Motor Vehicles Act, the degree of proof required to be shown being only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability, but not beyond reasonable doubt, it can safely be said that the evidence adduced above demonstrates the claimants discharged their burden in establishing the factum of occurrence of the accident and that 1st respondent driver was negligent. 12. As regards reliability of FIR and charge sheet and other documents collected by investigating agency in the process of investigation and enquiry into the crimes registered on account of the Motor Accidents Cases, the Apex Court in Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others4 held that aforesaid documents, in particular charge sheet, prima facie points towards the drivers complicity in driving vehicle negligently and rashly and even if the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal cases, the same may be of no effect on assessment of liability in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal. The said view 4 (2018) 5 SCC 656 12 CGR, J MACMA. No.290 of 2022 came to be expressed considering the judgment rendered by Apex Court in Dulcina Fernandes and others v. Joaquim Xavier Crux and another5, which held that plea of negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle as set up by claimants was required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touch stone of preponderance of probability and certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The said view has later been followed and reiterated by Apex Court in Mathew Alexander v. Mohammed Shafi and Another6. Even recently in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited v. Rajani Sahoo and others7, the exposition in aforesaid judgments has been reiterated. 13. One of the points closely contested in the present appeal is as to delay in registering FIR would be fatal to the claim of compensation, which has been even the view taken by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for appellants, while addressing aforesaid aspect, placed reliance on judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Ravi’s case1 and drew attention of this Court to the following paragraphs of the said judgment, which read as under: 5 (2013) 10 SCC 646 6 (2023) 13 SCC 510 7 (2025) 2 SCC 599 13 CGR, J MACMA. No.290 of 2022 “17. It is well settled that delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to first rush to the police station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the police station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with the police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim. 18. In cases of delay, the courts are required to examine the evidence with a closer scrutiny and in doing so the contents of the FIR should also be scrutinised more carefully. If the court finds that there is no indication of fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered to implicate innocent persons then, even if there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the claim case cannot be dismissed merely on that ground. The purpose of lodging the FIR in such type of cases is primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of criminal offences. 19. Lodging of FIR certainly proves the factum of accident so that the victim is able to lodge a case for compensation but delay in doing so cannot be the main ground for rejecting the claim petition. In other words, although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases, delay in lodging the same should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings, if claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. There could be a variety of reasons in genuine cases for 14 CGR, J MACMA. No.290 of 2022 delayed lodgement of FIR. Unless kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquillity of mind and are composed to lodge it, even if, there is delay, the same deserves to be condoned. In such circumstances, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons.” 14. Even counsel for respondent Insurer, while referring to very same judgment in particular Paragraph 18, contended that while dealing with cases of delay, the Court has to examine the evidence with closer scrutiny to cull out whether the claim was instituted on account of fabricated, concocted, engineered documents to claim undue advantage. The ratio that emerges from aforesaid paragraphs is that mere delay in lodging FIR cannot be a ground to deny justice to the victim, however, the court, while examining the cause of delay, should examine the evidence with closer circumspection to find out whether the same has been devised to fabricate false claims. Further the delay in registration of FIR has to be explained with cogent reasons. 15. Keeping aforesaid guidance in view, the order passed by Tribunal has to be tested. The Tribunal proceeded on the basis that immediately after occurrence of incident, though it has been stated by P.W.1, one of the claimants, that the incident was 15 CGR, J MACMA. No.290 of 2022 informally reported to police and constable approached for enquiry, as there was no justifiable reasons forthcoming in really registering the FIR on 24.03.2017 i.e., nearly after three months, the victim having undergone treatment twice in the hospital and got discharged, the delay was found to be unexplainable and created doubt about the very occurrence of accident. Further, Tribunal also analysed the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 and concluded that their versions were slightly inconsistent and not inspiring to come to conclusion that the accident has occurred and the death was on account of such accident. The Tribunal has lost sight of the evidence of R.W.1, who clearly spoke that the accident occurred and that the victim was also negligent in cause of the accident and further that post-accident she was admitted to hospital. This has been the case of the claimants all through, to establish the said fact Exs.P1, P2, P5 and P6 came to be marked. 16. As observed by this Court, the claimants were merely required to prove aforesaid aspects on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. Even otherwise, as R.W.1 has clearly admitted to the aforesaid aspect of occurrence of accident and admission of injured in hospital, claimants need not further burden themselves to prove beyond what is established. Tribunal 16 CGR, J MACMA. No.290 of 2022 therefore committed severe error in not noticing of aforesaid aspect. A close scrutiny of the evidence, FIR, MVI report and charge sheet, besides the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 and R.W.1, it is clearly evident that the victim was hit by Truck and was later shifted to hospital for treatment. Mere delay in lodging the FIR, as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in Ravi’s case1, cannot thus be a ground for denying justice to the victim. As the claimants have therefore discharged their burden of proof, if really the insurer was serious about its stand that accident never occurred, it was on it to atleast examine the driver of offending vehicle to prove otherwise. Therefore, the first issue is accordingly answered in affirmative holding that the deceased got injured on account of accident occurred on 22.12.2016 when the 1st respondent driver of offending vehicle hit her in rash and negligent manner. 17. Incidental to the 1st issue, submission has been made that there is no proximity to the accident and cause of death. The said submission has no legs to stand, inasmuch as the evidence of R.W.1 clearly admitted that post accident, the injured was taken to hospital, therefore, the insurer’s evidence itself clearly admitted to the said fact. Even otherwise, the evidence of P.W.2 – doctor, who treated the victim, coupled with other documentary evidence, 17 CGR, J MACMA. No.290 of 2022 demonstrates that the injured was taken to hospital for treatment immediately after occurrence of accident. The wound certificate and discharge summary dated 22.01.2017 and 17.03.2017 establish the nature of injuries sustained and postmortem report speaks of the reason/cause of death. All these sequence/chain of events if seen together, i.e., the occurrence of accident, sustaining injuries, treatment availed and ultimately succumbing for the same, leave no doubt for one to come to any other conclusion. The said evidence is sufficient to come to conclusion that there is a clear-cut proximity between the accident and the cause of death. Point No.(ii) 18. Coming to the aspect of determination of compensation, the deceased stated to be aged 26 years, which is discernible from the postmortem report and that she is claimed to be working as lace worker. Though the aspect of age can be considered as 26 years based on postmortem report, in the absence of any evidence that deceased was attending to lace works, she is required to be assessed for income on notional basis. 19. Learned counsel for appellants by referring to the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunita’s case2 prayed to assess the income of deceased as ₹5,000/- per month, which was determined 18 CGR, J MACMA. No.290 of 2022 to a house wife. It is stated that the deceased is unmarried and also having hearing and speech impairment. Therefore, she be assessed with just and fair compensation. 20. On the other hand, learned counsel for insurer by referring to Ramachandrappa’s case3 submitted that the income of deceased therein be assessed as ₹4,500/- per month, which was granted to a case of a coolie. 21. Considering both these judgments and in the absence of any evidence on record, the notional income of deceased is assessed as ₹5,000/- per month and her age is considered as 26. As the deceased is stated to be unmarried, 50% has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Conventional Heads: 22. As per the judgments in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others8 (supra 1), Magma National Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others9, Smt.Anjali and others v. Lokendra Rathod and others10, United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Satinder Kaur @ 8 2017) 16 SCC 680 9 (2018) 11 SCC 780 10 (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1682 19 CGR, J MACMA. No.290 of 2022 Satwinder Kaur and Ors.11., and Rojalini Nayak and Others v. Ajit Sahoo and Others12, this Court awards the following amounts under the conventional heads of Loss of Consortium, Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses, as ₹48,400/- (per claimant), ₹18,150/- and ₹18,150/- respectively as was awarded in Rojalini’s Case (Supra). 23. Accordingly, considering the income of deceased as ₹5,000/- per month, the compensation stands worked out as follows: S.No. Description of the Head Amount Entitled in rupees 1 Net Annual Income ₹5,000/- x 12 = ₹60,000/- 2 Future prospects (at the age of 26 years) ₹24,000/- (i.e., 40% of the income) Total Income ₹84,000/- 3 Deduction towards personal expenditure (50%) ₹42,000/- 4 Total Annual Loss of Dependency ₹42,000/- 5 Multiplier of 17 for the age of 26 years 17 x ₹42,000/- = ₹7,14,000/- Conventional Heads: 11 (2021) 11 SCC 780 12 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1901 20 CGR, J MACMA. No.290 of 2022 6 (i) Loss of consortium (4 claimants) ₹1,93,600/- (₹48,400/- x 4) (ii) Loss of Estate ₹18,150/- (iii) Funeral expenses ₹18,150/- 7 Total Compensation ₹9,43,900/- 24. In the result, this M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in the following terms: (i) Appellants/Claimants are awarded compensation of ₹9,43,900/- as just and fair, with interest @ 7.5% per annum thereon from the date of claim petition till realization. (ii) The 3rd respondent – Insurer is directed to deposit the compensation amount awarded by this Court within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (iii) On such deposit being made, the claimants 1 and 2 are entitled to withdraw 40% each (₹3,77,560/-) along with interest accrued thereon @ 7.5% per annum and claimants 3 and 4 are entitled to withdraw 10% each (₹94,390/-) along with interest accrued thereon @ 7.5% per annum. In the event if the compensation amount is not deposited, appellants/claimants are at liberty to take steps for recovery in accordance with law. (iv) There shall be no order as to costs. 21 CGR, J MACMA. No.290 of 2022 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. _______________________ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J 11.09.2025 SS