1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A.No.431 of 2017 JUDGMENT: 1. Heard learned counsel for both sides. 2. The respondent No.3 in M.V.O.P.No.192 of 2014, (The Oriental Insurance Company Limited) filed the present appeal invoking Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, questioning the award and decree 11.01.2016 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- X Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajamundry, [‘for short ‘MACT’], where under the MACT has awarded compensation of Rs.5,31,500/- with interest @ 9% p.a., as against a claim made for Rs.5,00,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a., by the claimants, who are arrayed as respondents No.1 to 4 herein. The respondents 5 and 6 herein are the Driver and owner of the Auto bearing No. AP 05 W 5046 [herein after referred as ‘offending vehicle’]. They were shown as respondents 1 and 2 respectively, before the MACT and they remained ex parte before the MACT. 3. The parties will be hereinafter referred as and how they are arrayed before the learned MACT. The case of the claimants, in brief, is that – 4. [i] One Bonula Surya Rao @ Bonala Surya Rao [herein after referred to as ‘the deceased’], on the fateful day i.e., on 01.11.2013, at about 5.30 p.m. 2 while proceeding on Korukonda Road, within the limits of III Town Police Station, Rajahmundry, for attending his duty as watchman, the offending vehicle driven by the 1st respondent, came in a rash and negligent manner, from Rajahmundry side, proceeding towards Korukonda side, dashed the deceased causing multiple injuries. Immediately deceased was shifted to Raju Neuro Hospital, Rajahmundry, and he succumbed to injuries on 02.11.2013 at about 5.30 p.m. while undergoing treatment. [ii] The 1st claimant is the wife, the claimant Nos.2 and 4 are the sons and the 3rd claimant is the daughter of the deceased. The deceased was aged about 55years, working as watchman, earning Rs.8,000/- per month, contributing the same for the family . His demise has denied valuable financial support, apart from love and affection, etc., to the entire family. The negligence of the 1st respondent is the cause in the accident. The 2nd respondent being owner of the offending vehicle and the 3rd respondent being insurer, liable to pay compensation. Hence, the claim. The case of the 3rd respondent/ Insurance Company:- 5. The respondent Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation, unless the negligence of the 1st respondent, coverage of risk under the Insurance Policy referred, valid and effective driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle, age, occupation and income of the deceased and his death due to 3 pleaded accident, dependency of the claimants, compliance of the condition of the Policy by the owner of the offending vehicle and all other relevant facts for making the Insurance Company liable to pay compensation and quantification there on are strictly proved. 6. On the strength of pleadings, learned MACT settled the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the deceased died in the accident due to rash or negligent driving and by use of the vehicle i.e., auto bearing No.AP 05 W 5046 by its driver /1st respondent? 2) Whether there is any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased? 3) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and against whom? 4) To what relief? Evidence before the learned MACT:- Oral Evidence: 7. [i] Claimant No.1 was examined as PW1. She has stated about the relationship of the claimants with the deceased and death of the deceased due to accident, apart from age, occupation, income and dependency of the claimants. 4 [ii] One, T. Kalyan Kumar, a third party and eye witness to the accident was examined as PW.2. He has stated about the accident and negligence. He is the informant under the F.I.R./Ex.A1. [iii] One. G. Nagaraju was examined as PW.3, who is also said to be an eye witness to the accident. He has stated about the accident and negligence of the 1st respondent. [iv] On behalf of the respondents, one K.Vijaya Krishna, working as Senior Assistant in Regional Transport Office, Rajahmundry was examined as RW.1. He has stated about Ex.X2/Driving License, and Ex.X4/Fitness Certificate of the offending vehicle and about the permit to ply on roads. [v] One Ch.N.Meer Sayeebu who is the Assistant Manger of Insurance Company was examined as RW.2. 8. Documentary Evidence:- For the Claimant For the Respondents Exhibit No. Description Exhibit No. Description Ex.A1 Attested copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.394 of 2013 Ex.B1 Copy of Insurance Policy Ex.A2 Attested copy of Inquest Report over the dead body of the deceased Bonala Surya Rao Ex.B2 Copy of Aadhar Card of the deceased Ex.A3 Attested copy of the Postmortem examination of the deceased. Ex.B3 Copy of Aadhar Card of the Bonula Dalamma 5 Ex.A4 Attested copy of M.V.I. Report Ex.B4 Copy of Aadhar Card of Bonula Adhinarayana Ex.A5 Attested copy of the Charge Sheet Ex.X1 Letter of the R.T.O., Rajahmundry dated 20.02.2015. Ex.X2 Attested copy of the Driving License particulars. Ex.X3 Attested copy of the Form No.24, B. Register of Motor Vehicle. Ex.X4 Attested copy of the Permit History. Ex.X5 Attested copy of the F.C. History. Findings of the learned MACT: 9. [i] With regard to the accident and negligence, learned MACT, considering the evidence of PWs.2 and PW.3, eye witnesses and absence of the contest from the respondents 1 and 2, viz., the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, taking aid of the F.I.R., Inquest Report, Post Mortem Report, M.V.I. Report, charge sheet, found that the pleaded accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and death of the deceased due to accident. Accordingly, the entitlement of the claimants for compensation, in view of their relationship with deceased and their dependency are accepted. [ii] While, quantifying the compensation, the learned MACT, considered the age of the deceased as 68 years and income at Rs.6,000/- per month. Awarded a compensation of Rs.5,31,500/- adopting multiplier ‘5’, taking income at Rs.6,000/- per month, deducting 1/4th towards personal expenditure, towards 6 all heads like loss of consortium, loss of care, protection, guidance and love and affection etc.. Arguments in the Appeal:- For the appellant:- 10. [i] Learned MACT Failed to consider the evidence of RW.1, as to the defect in the driving license and permit for the offending vehicle etc.,, [ii] Leaned MACT ought to have seen that there is no loss of dependency for claimant Nos.2 to 4. [iii] Learned MACT erred taking income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, although the deceased is more than 60 years old. Further deducting income @¼th is incorrect, when all claimants are not dependents. [iv] Learned MACT, erred in awarding Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, and Rs.50,000/- each to the claimants 2 to 4, towards loss of care, protection and guidance and love and affection etc., [v] Learned MACT erred in awarding interest @9% per annum. For the Respondents:- 11. Learned MACT erred in taking the age of the deceased as more than 65 years, when his age is mentioned as 55 years by the PW.1, selection of multiplied ‘5’ is incorrect. The Tribunal should have taken income at Rs.8,000/- 7 per month, and the compensation awarded at Rs.5,31,500/- requires further enhancement and that there are no merits in the appeal to interfere. Hence, the appeal is fit to be dismissed with costs. 12. Perused the Record. 13. Thoughtful consideration given to the arguments advanced by the both sides. Now the points that arise for determination in this appeal are that - 1) Whether the pleaded accident dated 01.11.2013 has occurred due to the negligence of driver of the offending vehicle and whether deceased died due to the said accident? 2) Whether the appellant/respondent No.3 is liable to pay compensation to the claimants? If so, at what quantum? 3) Whether the impugned award and Decree dated 11.01.2016 passed in M.V.O.P.No.192 of 2014 by the learned MACT are sustainable under law and on facts? 4) What is the result of the appeal? Analysis of Evidence and the Findings of this Court:- 14. [1] As to accident, negligence of the driver of the offending Vehicle and Death of the deceased due to accident:- (i) PW.2 is an eye witness to the accident. He is shown as LW.1 in the Charge Sheet/Ex.A5 and shown as informant under F.I.R./Ex.A1. He has categorically stated about the occurrence of the accident and negligence of the 8 driver of the offending vehicle, even about the death of the deceased due to accident. (ii) During Cross-examination, he has clearly stated that the offending vehicle came in a wrong side and dashed the deceased. He denied the suggestion that he is giving evidence to help the claimants. (iii) Evidence of PW.3, is in the same lines as that of PW.2, the attempt made to dilute the evidence of claimant, suggesting negligence on the part of the deceased that the road was straight, the persons proceeding in opposite directions will be on their respective lines etc., did not shake the evidence of PW.3, as to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. (iv) Further the evidence of PW.1, wife of the deceased, about the death of the deceased due to accident and other material on record, viz., Inquest and Post Mortem reports and absence of serious contest as to cause of death, if seen together the death of the deceased due to accident, can be considered as proved. (v) Hence, accident, negligence of driver of the offending vehicle and death of the deceased due to accident are believed. [2] Age, occupation and income of the deceased: [i] The Tribunal has answered the contest as to the age of the deceased vide Para-13 (B) (C) of the impugned judgment vide pages 11 to 13. 9 Reasoning of MACT:- [ii] Claimants pleaded that age of the deceased is 55 years. The contention of the Insurance Company is that year of birth of the deceased is 1945, the age of the wife of the deceased viz., claimant No.1 is 63 years, as her year of birth is shown as 1950, year of birth of son of the deceased is 1966. There cannot be wrong year of birth in 03 Aadhar Cards. Therefore, the age of the deceased shall be considered as 68. [iii] By considering the document/ Ex.B3, according to which, the age of the 1st claimant can be considered as 63 years, and the age of the 2nd claimant is 47 years, the description of the deceased under Ex.A2, A3, A5 that he is aged about 60 years cannot be the basis and his age fit to be taken at 68 years is the finding of the learned MACT. Findings of this Court as to Age:- [iv] The reasoning of the learned MACT while fixing the age of the deceased is found rational. Copy of the Aadhar Card of the deceased and the 1st claimant/ wife of the deceased i.e., Exs.B2, B3, are referring to the years of birth as 1945 and 1950 respectively. Ex.B4-copy of Aadhar Card of the 2nd claimant, the son of the deceased is referring to his year of bright as 1966. Therefore, the age of the deceased taken by the learned MACT is found fit to be accepted and this Court finds that there are no grounds to take contra view. 10 Occupation and Income:- [v] Though there is dispute as to deceased working as watchman, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 found fit for acceptance as to his occupation as watchman and notional assessment of his income @Rs.6,000/- per month by the learned MACT are also found reasonable, rational, hence require no inference. [vi] Therefore, age of deceased at 65, occupation as watchman, income at Rs.6000/- per month, are accepted, since deceased is aged above 65 years, no further prospects can be added. [3] Dependency:- Claimant No.1, who is the wife of the deceased can be considered as dependent. The married daughter and two major sons cannot be considered as dependents unless some substantial circumstances indicating their dependency is shown. However, loss of love and affection, etc., aspects can be taken into consideration, since there is no direct evidence indicating loss of dependency to the claimants No.2 to 4, deduction towards personal expenditure of the deceased can be made at 1/3rd instead of 1/4th, taken by the learned MACT. Quantification:- Precedential Guidance in quantifying the compensation in case of claims arising out of Motor Vehicles Accidents causing death:- 15. The judgments which can be considered as locus classicus that guides the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals and the Courts concerned, in the process of quantifying the compensation mainly are as follows: 11 (1). Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.1:- The Honorable Apex Court, referring to relevant principles relating to assessment of compensation in cases of death, in the light of earlier judicial pronouncements, to have uniform approach and consistency in awarding compensation, felt need for the awarding ‘just compensation’, which is not merely the Tribunal considers it just, but it shall be just, adequate, fair, and equitable compensation with reference to facts and circumstances of each case. Accordingly, issued certain guidelines. Relevant observations are made at Para 18 and 19 of the judgment, while observing that there shall be addition of further prospects to the income and deduction towards personal and living expenses and selection of appropriate multiplier. Finally, the Honorable Apex Court referred to multiplier that can be adopted is what mentioned in column number 4 of Table provided in the judgment as contemplated in Trilok Chandra2's case, clarified in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie3 . Para Nos.18 and 19, and the table provided in Sarla Verma’s case [cited supra] are extracted for better appreciation:-- 1 2009 (6) SCC 121 2 (1996) 4 SCC 362 3 (2005) 10 SCC 720 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1657 12 “18. 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 (c) the number of dependants. The issues to be determined by 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 to the age of the deceased. If these determinants are standardised, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay. 19. To have uniformity and consistency, the Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by the following well-settled steps: Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependant family, constitutes the multiplicand. Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The 13 multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased. Step 3 (Actual calculation) The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the “loss of dependency” to the family. Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs 5000 to Rs 10,000 may be added as loss of estate. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of 5000 to 10,000 should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased. The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred) should also be added. …… 40. The multipliers indicated in Susamma Thomas [(1994) 2 SCC 176 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 335] , Trilok Chandra [(1996) 4 SCC 362] and Charlie [(2005) 10 SCC 720 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1657] (for claims under Section 166 of the MV Act) is given below in juxtaposition with the multiplier mentioned in the Second Schedule for claims under Section 163-A of the MV Act (with appropriate deceleration after 50 years): Age of the deceased Multiplier scale as envisaged in Susamma Thomas4 Multiplier scale as adopted by Trilok Chandra5 Multiplier scale in Trilok Chandra’s case as clarified in Charlie6 Multiplier specified in Second Column in the Table in Second Schedule to the MV Act Multiplier actually used in Second Schedule to the MV Act (as seen from the quantum of compensation) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Upto 15y - - - 15 20 15 to 20y 16 18 18 16 19 21 to 25y 15 17 18 17 18 26 to 30y 14 16 17 18 17 31 to 35y 13 15 16 17 16 4 [(1994) 2 SCC 176 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 335] 5 [(1996) 4 SCC 362] 6 [(2005) 10 SCC 720 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1657] 14 36 to 40y 12 14 15 16 15 41 to 45y 11 13 14 15 14 46 to 50y 10 12 13 13 12 51 to 55y 9 11 11 11 10 56 to 60y 8 10 09 8 8 61 to 65y 6 08 07 5 6 Above 65 5 05 05 5 5 (2). National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others:-7 In this case, the Honorable Apex Court, after referring to the observations in Sarla Verma's case cited supra, issued certain guidelines, the relevant paragraphs are 59.3 to 59.8 they are: “59.3. 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. 59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. 7 2017(16) SCC 680 15 59.5. For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paras 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] which we have reproduced hereinbefore 59.6. The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma’s case read with para 42 of that judgment. 59.7. The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. 59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs.40,000 and Rs.15,000 respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.” (3). MAGMA General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and Others8 In this case the Hon’ble Apex Court considered the point that whether loss of consortium, include “spousal consortium”, “parental consortium”, and “filial consortium” in a case of death. It was a case of death of Bachelor, and claim was made by father and sister, etc., relevant observations are made in Para Nos. 21-23 as to who are entitled for consortium, observations are as follows:- “21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] dealt with the various heads under which 8 (2018) 18 SCC 130 16 compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is loss 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 : [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149] 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”. [Black's Law Dictionary (5th Edn., 1979).] 21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, 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 recognised 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. 17 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 [ Rajasthan High Court in Jagmala Ram v. Sohi Ram, 2017 SCC OnLine Raj 3848 : (2017) 4 RLW 3368; Uttarakhand High Court in Rita Rana v. Pradeep Kumar, 2013 SCC OnLine Utt 2435 : (2014) 3 UC 1687; Karnataka High Court in Lakshman v. Susheela Chand Choudhary, 1996 SCC OnLine Kar 74 : (1996) 3 Kant LJ 570] . However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of filial consortium. 16. In the light of the Precedential Guidance referred above, for considering the entitlement of claimants for compensation, the factors that can be considered from the evidence on record are as follows. 1. Age of the deceased – above 65 years. 2. Income of the deceased – Rs. 6,000/- per month : Rs. 72,000/- per year 3. Clear case of dependency is in respect of Claimant No. 1 alone, who is wife of the deceased, then the Deduction permissible is 1/3rd towards personal expenditure of the deceased. 4. Since the age of the deceased is more than 65 years, there is no possibility to add any additional income towards future prospects. 18 Multiplicand:- 17. The income of the deceased Rs. 70,000/- (-) 1/3rd = Rs. 48,000/-; (2/3rd of Rs.72,000/-). Therefore, multiplicand is taken at Rs.48,000/-; 18. Multiplier, for the age group of persons above 65 years, applicable as per Sarla Verma's case is ‘5’. 19. Calculation:- [i] Multiplicand Rs. 48,000 (X) 5 is equal to Rs.2,40,000/-. [ii] Therefore, under the head of loss of dependency, the entitlement of claimants for compensation shall be Rs.2,40,000/-. The compensation awarded by the learned MACT under this head is Rs. 2,70,000/-. The same requires reduction. 20. The compensation that can be awarded under the loss of consortium shall be Rs.40,000/- with 10% enhancement for every 03 years. 21. From the date of death of the deceased till the date of award, viz., 1-11- 2013 to 11-01-2016, @10% can be added, hence, entitlement for consortium comes to Rs. 44,000/-. The claimants No.2 to 4, being children, entitled for the compensation under the head of loss of parental consortium @ Rs. 44,000/- each. 19 22. In terms of the observations in Pranay Sathi's case, under funeral expenditure and loss of estate, the claimants are entitled for Rs. 15,000/- under each head with @10% enhancement, whereby the entitlement comes to Rs.16,500/- under each head. 23. Learned MACT granted compensation in a lump sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, towards loss of care, guidance, love and affection, towards the children. This head is not provided anywhere. However, the head of loss of consortium is meant to provide compensation, considering these factors. To this extent, the clarity and guidance can be drawn from the Magma General Insurance Company’s case [referred above]. 24. In the light of the discussion made and the evidence on record, comparative table as to the entitlement of the claimants for compensation under various heads considered and granted by the Tribunal and by this Court is as follows: Head Compensation awarded by the MACT Fixed by this Court (i) Loss of Dependency Rs.2,70,000/- Rs.2,40,00/- (ii) Loss of Consortium Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,76,000/- [@ 44,000/-x 4] (iii) Loss of Care, Guidance, love and affection towards children Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs.50000/- x 3) -Nil- [since this head is not provided anywhere and covered under the head loss of consortium] (iv) Funeral and obsequies expenses Rs.10,000/- Rs,16,500/- 20 (vi) Loss of estate Nil Rs,16,500/- (vii) Attendant Charges and Transportation Expenses Rs.1,500/- Rs.5,000/- Total compensation awarded Rs.5,31,500/- Rs.4,54,000 25. In the light of the analysis made and the findings of this Court, points No.1, 2, 3 are answered as follows:-. 1) Whether the pleaded accident dated 01.11.2013 has occurred due to the negligence of driver of the offending vehicle and whether deceased died due to the said accident? This point is answered in favour of the claimants, concluding that pleaded accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and the deceased died to accident. 2) Whether the appellant/ respondent No.3 is liable to pay compensation to the claimants? If so, at what quantum? The appellant/respondent No.3, Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants for a sum of Rs.4,54,000/- with interest @9% p.a.. Modified accordingly. 3) Whether the impugned award and Decree dated 11.01.2016 passed in M.V.O.P.No.192 of 2014 by the learned MACT are sustainable under law and on facts? Award and Decree require modification to the extent of reducing the compensation from Rs.5,31,500/- with interest @9% to Rs.4,54,000/- with interest @9% p.a.. 21 26. Point No.4: What is the result of the appeal:- In the result, the appeal is partly allowed as follows: 1) The compensation awarded by the learned MACT under Award dated 11.01.2016 in M.V.O.P.No.192 of 2014, is reduced from Rs.5,31,500/- to Rs.4,54,000/- with interest @9% p.a. 2) The apportionment of compensation shall get reduced in the same proportion to the claimants. 3) On deposit, all the claimants are entitled to withdraw their respective shares at once. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed. ____________________________ A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J Date: 19 .02.2025 Pnr