1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A.No.1997 of 2016 JUDGMENT: 1. M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited / Respondent No.3 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Parvatipuram, Vizianagaram District (for short “the learned MACT”) filed the present appeal disputing sustainability of decree and order dated 23.09.2015 passed by the learned MACT, where under a claim made by the dependents and legal representatives of one S. Chinnayya (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), for his death in a motor vehicle accident for Rs.5,00,000/- was allowed for Rs.3,96,000/-. The appellant / Insurance Company is disputing the liability in all aspects. 2. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein are the claimants. Respondent No.5 is the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 35 U 6039 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”). Respondent No.6 is the owner of the offending vehicle. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 remained as ex parte. Case of the claimants: 3(i). On the fateful day i.e. 11.07.2012, the deceased boarded the offending vehicle as a quarry labourer along with the co-labourer and cleaner, when they were reached near the lands of Cheeluri Krishna, Cherukupalli Village, within the limits of Pachipenta Police Station, Vizianagaram District, the driver of the offending vehicle drove it in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over the 2 same, whereby the offending vehicle turned turtle and fell into water canal. Due to the said accident, the deceased succumbed to injuries on the spot. Immediately the deceased was shifted to Hospital, Salur, but the doctors declared him as brought dead. 3(ii). Further case of the claimants is that the deceased was hale and healthy, aged about 45 years earning Rs.3,600/- per month. The claimants are dependents and legal heirs. Hence, they are entitled for compensation. A case in Crime No.51 of 2012 registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and he was subsequently charge sheeted. Owner and Insurance Company of the offending vehicle are liable to pay the compensation. Case of the Insurance Company: 4(i). Claimants shall prove their status as legal heirs of the deceased, occurrence of the accident due to negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, death of the deceased due to accident, age, occupation and income of the deceased, dependency of the claimants etc. relevant aspects. 4(ii). Further, specific case of the Insurance Company is that, the travel of deceased in the offending vehicle at relevant time was as an unauthorized passenger and the policy does not cover the risk of unauthorized passenger. The vehicle does not require any labour being hydraulic in its nature and the quantum of compensation claimed is exaggerated and the Insurance Company 3 is not liable to pay any compensation for want of compliance of policy conditions by the owner of the vehicle. 5. On the strength of pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by the learned MACT: 1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligence driving of the lorry bearing No.AP 35 U 6039 driven by it‟s driver 1st Respondent resulting in death of the deceased? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation and if so, to what amount and against whom? 3. To what relief? 6. Evidence before the learned MACT: Description Remarks Oral evidence P.W.1: S. Ramanamma Claimant No.1 P.W.2: Kota Latchayya Eye witness to the accident. Documentary evidence Ex.A1: Attested true copy of FIR in Cr.No.51/2012 of Pachipenta Police Station. Ex.A2: Attested true copy of post mortem certificate. Ex.A3: Attested true copy of M.V.I. report. Ex.A4: Attested true copy of charge sheet On behalf of the petitioner(s). Ex.B1: Policy copy On behalf of Respondent – Insurance Company. 4 Findings of the learned MACT: 7. PW.1, wife of the deceased is not an eye witness to the accident. 8(i). P.W.2 is a co-labourer, who travelled in the lorry /offending vehicle along with the deceased. His evidence is clear as to occurrence of accident and negligence of the driver of the lorry / offending vehicle. During cross examination of PW.2, it was suggested to him that there was negligence of Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 alone is liable to pay the compensation. Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A4-charge sheet corroborates the evidence of PW.2. Therefore, the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is clear and death of the deceased due to the accident is also clear from the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 with the corroboration from Ex.A2-post mortem certificate. 8(ii). The deceased was aged about 45 years. His income can be taken at Rs.120/- per day. Multiplier applicable is „14‟. Loss of dependency comes to Rs.3,36,000/-, after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenditure of the deceased as contemplated under Sarla Verma’s case. Claimant No.1 being the wife of the deceased entitled at Rs.25,000/- towards loss of consortium and claimants are entitled for Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenditure and transport expenditure and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate. The claimants are entitled for Rs.3,96,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum in all. Liability is joint and several. However, in view of the Insurance Policy, Respondent No.3 / Insurance Company is liable to pay the same. 5 Arguments in the appeal: For the appellant insurance company: 9. The defence of the Insurance Company that deceased travelled as an unauthorized passenger is not properly appreciated by the learned MACT. The liability is fixed on the Insurance Company ignoring the defence and evidence. Hence, the award under challenge is liable to be set-a-aside. For claimants: 10. The compensation awarded is very low. Even in the absence of appeal by the claimants, the compensation can be enhanced awarding just and reasonable compensation. 11. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration given to the arguments advanced by the both sides. 12. The points that arise for determination in this appeal are: 1. Whether the pleaded accident dated 11.07.2012 has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and whether the deceased died due to the said accident? 2. Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation, if so to what quantum and what shall be the liability of the Respondents and whether the compensation of Rs.3,96,000/- awarded by the learned MACT is just and reasonable or require any modification either by way of enhancing or scaling down? 3. What is the result of the appeal? 6 Point No.1: 13. P.W.2 / Kota Latchayya is an eye witness to the accident. He is a co-labourer. In Ex.A4 charge sheet, he is cited as LW.2. During his cross examination, it was suggested to him that the deceased was traveling in a lorry / offending vehicle by paying Rs.10/- which suggest that the presence of deceased in the lorry/ offending vehicle is not disputed. Further, it was suggested that the accident occurred due to the negligence of Respondent No.1 and hence Respondent No.2 alone is liable to pay the compensation. This suggestion and admission made during cross examination on behalf of the Insurance Company is more than sufficient to believe the negligence and occurrence of accident, including the presence and death of deceased due to the accident. Therefore, point No.1 is answered accordingly against the appellant Insurance Company and in favour of the claimants. Point No.2: Entitlement: 14. Legal heir status of claimants is not in serious dispute and they have asserted the same. Claimant No.1 / S. Ramanamma cited as LW.3 in the charge sheet deposed that the death of the deceased is due to the accident. This stands corroborated with Ex.A2- post mortem certificate and recitals in Ex.A4-charge sheet and with the evidence of PW.2. Therefore, the entitlement of claimants for compensation being dependents and legal heirs is clear. 7 Liability: 15. The defence of the appellant Insurance Company is that the deceased was an unauthorized passenger. Whereas, the contention of the claimants is that deceased was a labourer and travelled in the lorry as a labour. It is pertinent to note that the policy is a package policy. Whereby, it suggests that it is a comprehensive one covers the risk of even inmates provided that they are permitted to travel. The limitations as to use of vehicle vide condition No.3 at page No.1 of the Ex.B1 Insurance Policy shows that it includes use for carrying passengers in the vehicles; except employees (other than the driver) not exceeding the number permitted in the registration document and coming under the purview of Workmen‟s Compensation Act, 1923. 16. Premium details column at page No.2 of policy shows collection of premium for owner and driver-GR 36A is at Rs.100/-. Additional LL to NFPP vehicles including employees-IMT-37 is at Rs.75/- and additional LL to employees at Rs.175/- is collected. 17. Plain reading of Ex.B1 Insurance Policy suggests that the employees engaged who are contemplated under Workmen‟s Compensation Act, 1923 are also covered. The Insurance Company may take defence that there shall not be more number than permitted in the registration document. But, the registration document of the crime / offending vehicle is not produced by the Insurance Company to show how many persons can travel. It is claimed that deceased was travelling in the cabin. 8 Legal position with regard to traveller of labour in the goods vehicle: Precedential Guidance: Coverage of risk of labour engaged for loading and unloading purposes: 18(i). In a case of New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Palani M. Samundeeswari1 reported in 2009 SCC Online Mad 1257 where the injured/ claimant travelling as coolie on tractor used for transportation of sugarcane and the claimant travelled by sitting on mudguard of Tractor as a coolie for the purpose connected with agricultural operations was considered. It was held that the Policy will cover the coolie also vide para Nos.5, 7 to 9. 5.It is in evidence that the claimant was travelling as a Coolie in the Tractor which was utilized for transporting the sugarcane to the sugar mills in the second respondent's Tractor. On return, after unloading, the accident took place. So, it has to be seen whether the Insurance Company is liable. 7. He also draws attention of this Court to my decision reported in The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Hosur v. Loganayagi and 4 others, 2009 (2) LW 953, wherein I have followed the decision of the Supreme Court and anchored the responsibility of paying the compensation upon the Insurance Company in a case where the deceased was travelling in the Tractor, which was loaded with stones belonging to the owner of the Tractor. The stones were transported for construction of the well in agricultural lands of the vehicle owner and the deceased was employed by the owner to load and unload the stones in the Trailer of the Tractor and I have observed that while the Tractor and Trailer were being utilized for agricultural purpose, as shown in this case and the owner or his representative as load man travelled by the vehicle and in case if he sustains personal injuries or 1 2009 SCC Online Mad 1257 9 otherwise, then the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. The operative portion of the Judgment goes thus: “13. Following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in this regard and also considering the view taken by the other High Courts, this Court is of the considered opinion that while a Tractor and Trailer were be in utilised for agricultural purposes as shown in this case and if the owner or his representative as load-man, travelled by the vehicle and in case he got personal injury or otherwise, then the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. It is held as such.” 9. Bearing in mind the decision of this Court and other High Courts and following principles laid down in the Apex Court decision, it is held that since the deceased was travelling by the Tractor, even though, he was sitting in the mudguard, for the personal injuries received by him, the Insurance Company has to be held liable. To support this view of this Court, takes aid of the oral account of the R.W.1 also who is a Junior Assistant in Insurance Company who says in his cross-examination that the policy issued for the first respondent is a package policy, that if the Trailer is attached to the Tractor, the Policy will cover Coolie also and if any Coolie travels in the Tractor sustains injuries, then the Policy would cover them also. Hence, the irresistible conclusion would be that the Insurance Company has to be held liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. (ii). In United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Mattedu Manikyam and others2 the Hon‟ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh considered a case of insurance policy allowing six labourers to travel in the tractor-trailor and only when three labourers were travelling found that the insurer is the labourer. It was also a case where the labourer travelled on the mudguard of the tractor 2 1999 SCC Online AP 685 10 along with goods for unloading the same. Relevant observation are made in the para 7 of the judgment which are as follows: 7. But as seen from the judgment of the Tribunal below, as per the insurance policy, six labourers are allowed to travel in the tractor-trailor, whereas, at the time of occurrence of the accident, only three labourers were travelling on the tractor-trailor, including the deceased. When the tractor comes within the definition of goods vehicle, the question of travelling on the trailor or the tractor does not arise and it does not make any difference. As is evident from the facts and circumstances of the case, the trailor was carrying the load of wooden logs, thus there shall be no space in the trailor to travel in it along with the goods, belonging to the owner of the vehicle, who was employer of the deceased. Thus it is clear that they have travelled on the mudguard of the tractor along with the goods for unloading the same. Therefore, it can be viewed that at the time of occurrence of the accident, the deceased travelled on the mudguard of the tractor contrary to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy is not correct. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal below is perfectly in accordance with law, when premium was paid for six coolies in respect of the policy covering the tractor. (iii) In a case between Mala Veerapuram Babu and another vs. Y. Krishudu and another3, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, after referring to several judgments including National Insurance Company Limited vs. Baljit Kaur4, New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Asha Rani and Others5 and New India Assurance Co., Ltd., vs. Satpal Singh and 3 2014 SCC Online Hyd 466 4 2004 (2) SCC 1, 5 (2003) 2 SCC 223 11 other6 etc, cases vide para Nos. 9 and 10 of the judgment and also with reference to section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act as it stood prior to after amendment and after referring to Indian Motor Tariff (IMT) 39 and 39-A etc., observed that the policy covers the specified risk of hamali‟s for loading and unloading purposes and the claim is tenable where they are travelling the goods vehicle. It was the case of the labour / Hamali‟s travelling in the lorry sitting on the Kadapa slabs. In this case Hon‟ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh also referred to National Insurance Company Limited vs. Anjana Shyam and Others7 for the proposition that where there is travel of more persons than carrying capacity, the claim can be allowed to the extent of permitted capacity and the same can be distributed among the all and directed the claimants and tribunals should follow the principle in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Anjana Shyam and Others (7 supra) case. (iv) It is relevant to note that New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Asha Rani and Others (5 supra) was a case of interpreting Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act as it stood prior to amendment in the year 1994 and interpretation of expression „any person‟ as to whether it would include the owner of the goods, who was earlier considered as gratuitous passenger etc. Learned counsel for insurance company relied on this judgment to contend that the New India Assurance Co., Ltd., vs. Satpal Singh and others (6 supra) 6 2000 ACJ 260 7(2007) 7 SCC 445 12 case referred by the learned MACT stands overruled in view of New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Asha Rani and Others (5 supra) case. However, the context of New India Assurance Co., Ltd., vs. Satpal Singh and others case and New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Asha Rani and Others case are in relation to interpretation of who are all fall and come under the expression of third party and liability in respect of gratuitous passengers etc. (v). The position with regard to travel of passengers or hamali‟s travelled in a goods vehicle, where premium is collected and where the policy is a package policy has been addressed in Mala Veerapuram Babu and another vs. Y. Krishudu and another (3 supra) case referred above. Further, in view of the New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Palani M. Samundeeswari (1 supra) case decided by the Hon‟ble High Court of Madras and also in United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Mattedu Manikyam and others (2 supra) a case decided by the Hon‟ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh referred above, it is necessary to examine what is the evidence and the nature of policy. Findings on liability of Insurance Company: 19. In view of the legal position and the precedents cited above and in the facts and circumstances of the case particularly in the light of Ex.B1 policy being a package policy and premium is also collected for employees, the objections of insurance company as to imposing liability found not convincing 13 as deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle at relevant time as labourer. Hence, the point framed answered accordingly against the insurance company concluding that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. Just and reasonable quantum of compensation: Quantifying the compensation in case of claims arising out of Motor Vehicles Accidents causing death:- Precedential Guidance: 20(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.8 vide paragraph Nos.18 and 19, while prescribing a table directing adoption of 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: 8 2009 (6) SCC 121 14 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: Ascertaining Multiplier. This shall be with reference to the table provided and table is provided in judgment itself. Step No.3: Calculation of the compensation. Final Step: 21(i). 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. 21(ii). Enhancing the scope for awarding just compensation, the Hon‟ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others9 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. The actual salary shall be after deducting taxes. Further, in respect of self employed on fixed salary addition is recommended, at 40% for the 9 2017(16) SCC 680 15 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 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, two years in Pranay Sethi’s case. 21(iii). Further enlarging the scope for awarding just and reasonable compensation in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and Others10, 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. 21(iv). In Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others11, 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) “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 10 (2018) 18 SCC 130 11 (2013) 9 SCC 54 16 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. 22. The income of the deceased is taken at Rs.120/- per day by the learned MACT. PW.2 is a co-labourer, he did not speak anything about what is the income he is getting or the deceased was getting as a labourer and what was the wage paid per day. Claimant No.1 as PW.1 has stated that the deceased was getting Rs.240/- per day. 23. The learned MACT has taken the income at Rs.120 per day. The learned MACT did not include future prospects. The arguments of the Insurance Company is that the income taken is excessive. The arguments of the claimants is that the learned MACT failed to take future prospects into consideration. Balancing the grievance on both sides that the income is taken at excessive and future prospects are not taken into consideration, if the income is taken at Rs.150/- per day inclusive of future prospects, the same would be to just and reasonable. Accordingly, the income is taken at Rs.150/- per day and Rs.4,500/- per month. The annual income comes to Rs.54,000/-, 1/3rd of the same if deducted, the contribution of the income of the deceased to the family comes to Rs.36,000/-. Multiplier applicable is „14‟. Then the loss of 17 dependency comes to Rs.5,04,000/- (Rs.36,000/- x 14). Claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/- under each heads of loss of estate and funeral expenditure and under the head of loss of consortium each claimant entitled for Rs.40,000/-. Then, the entitlement of claimants in all comes to Rs.6,94,000/- which can be considered as just and reasonable quantum of compensation. 24. In the light of precedential guidance and in view of the reasons and evidence referred above, the entitlement of the claimants for reasonable compensation in comparison to compensation awarded by the learned MACT is as follows: 25. In view of the reasons stated above, the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.6,94,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum shall be the just and adequate compensation, in the facts and circumstances of the case and S.No. Head Granted by the MACT Fixed by this Appellate Court 1. Loss of dependency Rs.3,36,000/- Rs.5,04,000/- 2. Loss of consortium Rs.25,000/- Rs.1,60,000/- (Rs.40,000/- @ each claimant: Rs.40,000/-x4) 3. Funeral Expenditure and Transport Expenditure Rs.25,000/- Rs.15,000/- 4. Loss of estate Rs.10,000/- Rs.15,000/- Total: Rs.3,96,000 /- Rs.6,94,000/- 18 the appellant Insurance Company is liable to pay the same. Point framed is answered accordingly. 26. Awarding more compensation than what claimed and awarding compensation to the claimants even in the absence of any appeal or cross objections by the claimants require examination. Granting of more compensation than what claimed, if the claimants are otherwise entitled:- 27. 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 Others12, 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 V. Jagadish Chand and Ors.13 at para 33, 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 12 (2003) 2 SCC 274 132020 (04) SCC 413 19 is more than the amount claimed, that must be awarded especially where the claimant is a minor.” Enhancement of compensation in the absence of appeal: 28(i). Whether the compensation can be enhanced in the absence of an appeal or cross appeal by the claimant. 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 cross objections was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in a case between National Insurance Company Limited vs. E. Suseelamma and others14 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. 14 2023 SCC Online AP 1725 20 28(ii). Observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. E. Suseelamma and others (14 supra) case are in compliance with the observations of Hon‟ble Apex Court in Surekha and Others vs. Santosh and Others15. 28(iii). In Surekha and Others vs. Santosh and Others (15 supra) case, 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 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. Point No.3: 29. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the findings of point Nos.1 and 2, Point No.3 is answered as follows: In the result, the appeal is dismissed. However, (i) The Compensation awarded by the learned MACT at Rs.3,96,000/- is modified and enhanced to Rs.6,94,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. 15 (2021) 16 SCC 467 21 (ii) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. (iii)The total compensation awarded including the enhanced part shall be allotted to respective claimants in tune with the apportionment made by the learned MACT. (iv) Withdrawal of compensation shall be in accordance with law and permission by the learned MACT. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeals shall stand closed. ____________________________ A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J Date: 04.04.2025 Knr 22 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A No.1997 of 2016 4th April, 2025 Knr