IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 627 OF 2024 Between: APSRTC, Rep. by its Regional Manager, Regional Office, RTC Bus Stand, Guntur. ...Appellant/R2 AND 1. Chintakrindi Padmavathi @ Venkata Padmavathi, W/o.Late Ram Prasad, aged about 44 years, R/o.D.No.4-261, Rendu Rama Mandirala Veedhi, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 2. Chintakrindi Jyothirlatha, D/o.Late Ram Prasad, aged about 25 years, R/o.D.No.4-261, Rendu Rama Mandirala Veedhi, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 3. Chintakrindi Kamali, D/o.Late Ram Prasad, aged about 23 years, R/o.D.No.4-261, Rendu Rama Mandirala Veedhi, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 4. Chintakrindi Suseela, W/o.Late Mohana Rao, aged about 69 years, R/o.D.No.4-261, Rendu Rama Mandirala Veedhi, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. . TV % . ■ t I:'^‘-SA.Akurathi Siva Sankara Rao, S/o.Veera Raghavayya, R/o.D.No.3-111, 4*^ Line, Pragada Kotaiah Nagar, 0pp. ITI College, Tenali, Guntur District. (R5 is not a necessary party) -y.,f ...Respondents Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the Judgment and Decree, dated 04-04-2024 passed in MVOP No.867 of 2022, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Guntur, Guntur District. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Award and Decree of the Trial Court and material papers in the petition and upon hearing arguments of Sri Yalal Abdulhafeez, Advocate representing Sri Sanisetty Venkateswarlu, Advocate for Appellant, and of Sri Kommareddy Diwakara Reddy, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 THIS COURT DOTH ORDER AND DECREE: 1. That the MACMA be and hereby is dismissed; 2. That there be no order as to costs. Sd/- K J RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Guntur, Guntur District. 2. Three CD Copies vna W HIGH COURT DATED:21/03/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.627 of 2024 rv > g( 2 6JUN 2025 CJ r*i ^5- ;>«'.ooaXl DISMISSING THE MAGMA WITHOUT COSTS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 528 OF 2024 Between: 1. Chintakrindi Padmavathi @ Venkata Padmavathi, W/o.Late Ram Prasad, aged about 43 years. House Wife, R/o.D.No.4-261, Rendu Rama Mandirala Veedhi, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 2. Chintakrindi Jyothirlatha, D/o.Late Ram Prasad, aged about 24 years. Student, R/o.D.No.4-261, Rendu Rama Mandirala Veedhi, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 3. Chintakrindi Kamali, D/o.Late Ram Prasad, aged about 22 years Student, R/o.D.No.4-261, Rendu Rama Mandirala Veedhi, Mangalagiri Guntur District. 4. Chintakrindi Suseela, W/o.Late Mohana Rao, aged about 68 years. Housewife, R/o.D.No.4-261, Rendu Rama Mandirala Veedhi, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. ...Appellants/Claimants AND 1. Akurathi Siva Sankara Rao, S/o.Veera Raghavayya, R/o.D.No.3-111, 4^*^ Line, Pragada Kotaiah Nagar, 0pp. ITI College, Tenali, Guntur District (Driver of the APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 1939) 2. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Regional Manager, RTC Bus Stand, Guntur, Guntur District (Owner of the APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 1939) ...Respondents ■i Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the Order, dated 04-04-2024 passed in MVOP No.867 of 2022, by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Guntur, Guntur District. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Award and Decree of the Trial Court and material papers in the petition and upon hearing arguments of Sri Kommareddy Diwakara Reddy, Advocate for Appellants, and of Sri Peta Gnana Teja, Advocate for Respondent No.1, Sri Yalal Abdulhafeez, Advocate representing Sri Sanisetty Venkateswarlu, Advocate for Respondent No.2 THIS COURT DOTH ORDER AND DECREE: 1. That the MACMA be and hereby is allowed; 2. That the compensation be and hereby is enhanced from Rs. 12,30,000/- to Rs. 16,92,400/- with interest at 9% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization against respondent Nos.1 and 2/driver and owner of the crime bus; 3. That the respondent No.2/APSRTC/owner be and hereby is directed to deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of this Judgment before the Tribunal; -i 4. That on such deposit, the claimants be and hereby are entitled to receive the enhanced compensation amount equally and they are permitted to withdraw the same with interest accrued thereon; 5. That the earlier apportionment made by the Tribunal regarding entitlement of the claimants towards their respective shares be and hereby are remained intact; 6. That the claimants be and hereby are directed to pay the deficit Court Fee forthwith before the Tribunal; 7. That the Tribunal be and hereby is directed to proceed to pay the amount in the aforesaid terms, adjusting the amount, if any, already paid; and 8. That the Appellants be and hereby are entitled to an amount of Rs.105/- (Rupees One Hundred and Five only) towards costs of the appeal to be paid by the respondents. MEMORANDUM OF COSTS MAGMA N0.528 OF 2024 )Costs Appellants( Ps. Rs. 00 05 Stamps for Vakalatnama Stamps used for the Memo Stamps for Judgment of the Lower Court Stamps for decree of Lower Court Value of Copy Stamp paper used for enclosures (12x2/-) Advocate’s fee on Rupees (not certified) Batta and Postage Translation and Printing charge 00 10 2 00 00 4 00 24 00 60 00 00 00 105 Total: w (The Claimants/appellants are entitled to an amount of Rs.105/- (Rupees One Hundred and Five only) towards costs of the Appeal to be paid by the respondents.) Sd/- K J RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Guntur, Guntur District. 2. Three CD Copies vna 1 HIGH COURT DATED:21/03/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.528 of 2024 ALLOWING THE MACMA WITH COSTS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NOS: 528 AND 627 OF 2024 MACMA NO: 528 OF 2024: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the Order, dated 04-04-2024 passed in MVOP No.867 of 2022, by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Guntur, Guntur District. Between: 1. Chintakrindi Padmavathi @ Venkata Padmavathi, W/o.Late Ram Prasad, aged about 43 years. House Wife, R/o.D.No.4-261, Rendu Rama Mandirala Veedhi, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 2. Chintakrindi Jyothirlatha, D/o.Late Ram Prasad, aged about 24 years. Student, R/o.D.No.4-261, Rendu Rama Mandirala Veedhi, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 3. Chintakrindi Kamali, D/o.Late Ram Prasad, aged about 22 years. Student, R/o.D.No.4-261, Rendu Rama Mandirala Veedhi, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 4. Chintakrindi Suseela, W/o.Late Mohana Rao, aged about 68 years. Housewife, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. R/o.D.No.4-261 Rendu Rama Mandirala Veedhi, ...Appellants/Claimants AND 1. Akurathi Siva Sankara Rao, S/o.Veera Raghavayya, R/o.D.No.3-111, Lin^, Pragada Kotaiah Nagar, 0pp. ITI College, Tenali, Guntur District.(Driver of the APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 1939) 2. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Regional Manager, RTC Bus Stand, Guntur, Guntur District (Owner of the APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 1939) 4 ...Respondents lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of [18 ] days in filing the appeal. Counsel for the Appellants :Srl Kommareddy Divakara Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.1:Sri Peta Gnana Teja Counsel for the Respondent No.2:Sri Yalal Abdulhafeez, Advocate representing Sri Sanisetty Venkateswarlu MACMA NO: 627 OF 2024: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the Judgment and Decree, dated 04-04-2024 passed in MVCP No.867 of 2022, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Guntur, Guntur District. Between: APSRTC, Rep. by its Regional Manager, Regional Office, RTC Bus Stand, Guntur. ...Appellant/R2 AND 1. Chintakrindi Padmavathi @ Venkata Padmavathi, W/o.Late Ram Prasad, aged about 44 years, R/o.D.No.4-261, Rendu Rama Mandirala Veedhi, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 2. Chintakrindi Jyothirlatha, D/o.Late Ram Prasad, aged about 25 years, R/o.D.No.4-261, Rendu Rama Mandirala Veedhi, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 3. Chintakrindi Kamali, D/o.Late Ram Prasad, aged about 23 years, R/o.D.No.4-261, Rendu Rama Mandirala Veedhi, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 4. Chintakrindi Suseela, W/o.Late Mohana Rao, aged about 69 years, R/o.D.No.4-261, Rendu Rama Mandirala Veedhi, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 5. Akurathi Siva Sankara Rao, S/o.Veera Raghavayya, R/o.D.No.3-111, 4‘^ Line, Pragada Kotaiah Nagar, 0pp. ITI College, Tenali, Guntur District. (R5 is not a necessary party) ...Respondents lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition filed under Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of operation of Decree and Order, dated 04.04.2024 passed in MVOP No.867 of 2022 on the file of Chairman, y* Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Guntur, pending disposal of the above Appeal. Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Yalal Abdulhafeez, Advocate representing Sri Sanisetty Venkateswarlu Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4:Sri Kommareddy Divakara Reddy The Court made the following Common Judgment: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A.Nos.528 & 627 of 2024 COMMON JUDGMENT: These appeals are directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge at Guntur (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.867 of 2022 dated 04.04.2024. Since these appeals arisen out of same accident and as 2. the material facts are common, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment. M.A.C.M.A.No.528 of 2024 is preferred by the 3. claimants, who are wife, daughters and mother of one Chintakrindi Ramprasad (hereinafter called as ‘the deceased’), before the Tribunal for enhancement of compensation. The respondent Nos.l and 2 are the driver and owner/APSRTC of the Bus bearing No.AP 29Z 1939 (hereinafter referred to as crime bus”). M,A.C.M.A.No.627 of 2024 is preferred by the 4. APSRTC/ owner of the said crime bus. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter 5. referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the 6. Tribunal is that: 2 i). On 23.06.2022 at about 08.30 p.m., while the deceased proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No.AP 07 BK 9139, when he reached near Coca-Cola factory, Atmakuru village, the driver of the crime bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed the motorcycle of the deceased from its behind, resulted the deceased died on the spot, ii). The deceased was aged about 47 years, earning Rs.30,000/- per month by running a jewelry shop and contributed the same for the welfare of the family. Being dependents, they claimed compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- against the driver and owner of the said crime bus. The respondent No. 1/driver filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased only, but not this respondent; that the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. >./ The respondent No.2/APSRTC filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the deceased is not having valid and effective driving license to drive the motorcycle by the date of incident; that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased only, but not 1 respondent driver of the crime bus; that the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry 8. St 9. basing on the material: T.Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 29Z 1939 on 23.06.2022 around 08.30 p.m., near Coca-Cola Factory, Atmakuru village and caused the death of Chintakrindi Ramprasad due to grievous injuries to the head of deeeased and other multiple injuries? 2.Whether the Petitioner is entitled for Compensation? If so, to what quantum and what is the liability of the Respondents? and 3.To what relief?” 4 10. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PW. 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A.l to A.7 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondents, the 1st respondent/driver himself examined as R.W.l, but no documents were exhibited. was 11. On the material, the Tribunal, having concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime bus by the Dt respondent, held that claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs. 12,30,000/-, with interest at 6% annum from the date of petition till the date of realization per against the respondent Nos.l and 2, for the death of the deceased in the accident. It is against the said order; these appeals are preferred by the claimants as well APSRTC respectively. 12. 13. Heard Sri K.Diwakar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants in M.A.C.M.A.No.528 of 2024 and Sri Yalal Abdulhafeez, learned counsel representing Sri Sanisetty Venketeswarlu, learned counsel for the appellant/APSRTC in M.A.C.M.A.No.627 of 2024. 5 the 14. Sri K.Diwakar Reddy, learned counsel for appellants/claimants submits that the Tribunal failed to assess the future prospects of the deceased; that the Tribunal ought to have granted filial consortium to the 4* petitioner; that the Tribunal failed to award compensation on the head of parental consortium to the petitioner Nos.2 and 3; that the Tribunal taken the income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- per month, but while calculating erroneously taken as Rs. 10,000/- per month, thereby, the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation in view of the settled legal position by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Sri Yalal Abdulhafeez, learned counsel representing Sri 15. the Sanisetty Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for appellant/APSRTC submits that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the deceased, but not driver of the crime bus; that the non-joinder of owner and insurer company of said motorcycle is fatal to the case of the claimants; that the Tribunal erred in calculating the compensation entitled by the 6 claimant and thereby, prays to consider the appeal preferred by the insurer. 16. Now, the following points arise for determination: 1. Whether there can be any contributory negligence attributed against the deceased in causing the incident? 2. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of owner and insurer of the motorcycle on which the deceased was travelling by the time of incident? 3. Whether the compensation awarded to the claimants is just compensation? and To what relief? 4. 17. POINT NO. 1: On this point, the Tribunal held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC Bus. It is not in dispute about the death of the deceased in the accident, involvement of the crime bus as well motorcycle of the deceased. 18. To prove the rash and negligence on the part of the 1 St respondent in driving the crime bus, the claimants got examined P.Ws.2 and 4, who are said to be eyewitness to the Yi ■ 1 incident. They categorically testified about the rash ^^S^igcnt driving of the crime bus by the 1®^ respondent, resulted death of the deceased. Nothing was elicited during examination to disbelieve the testimony of P.Ws.2 and 4. On perusal of Exs.A.l and A.2 F.I.R. and Charge Sheet respectively, the and cross 19. investigating agency, after thorough investigation, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime bus by the 1 st respondent. The testimony of P.Ws.2 and 4 coupled with Exs.A.l and A.2 categorically show that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime bus by the l®t respondent. 20. Even R.W.l, who is driver of the crime bus, admitted that during cross examination that he was kept under suspension by the department due to the said incident. He also admitted that police registered case against him and charge sheet also filed under Section 304(A) IPC. Furthermore, there must be cogent evidence to prove the contributoiy negligence, which is absent in the present case. 8 21. Having regard to the above it is the clear in vivid terms that the Tribunal after appreciating the material on record in right perspective came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime bus by the respondent, which requires no interference and no contributory negligence attributed against the deceased in causing the incident. Thus, this point is answered accordingly. 22. POINT N0.2: It is also the contention of the appellant/APSRTC that the non-joinder of owner and insurer of the motorcycle of the deceased is fatal to the case of the claimants. In view of the discussion made in point No.l, it is 23. categorical that the incident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime bus by the 1®^ respondent and no contributory negligence attributed against the deceased in causing the incident. Thereby, there is no requirement for the claimants to made the owner and insurer of the said motorcycle as parties to the proceedings in view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Khenyei v. New India 9 Assurance Company Limited^ wherein it was categorically observed that “The owner, driver and insurer of one of the vehicles can be sued and it is not necessary to sue the owner, driver and insurer of both the vehicles. The claimant may implead the owner, driver and insurer of both the vehicles or anyone of them. Thereby, the contention of the appellant/APSRTC that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties has no legs to stand. Thus, this point is answered accordingly. 24. 25. POINT N0.3: Coming to the just compensation, it is the specific case of the claimants coupled with testimony of P.Ws.l and 3, the deceased running a Jewelry shop and earning Rs.30,000/- per month. However, in the absence of substantial documentary proof to prove the actual income of the deceased, the Tribunal rightly assessed the same at Rs. 10,000/- per month at paragraph No.20 of its order. It is also to be noted that the Tribunal mentioned at paragraph No.23 that “the income of the (2015) 9 see 273 10 deceased was taken at Rs. 15,000/- per month”, but when it comes to calculation, taken as Rs. 10,000/- per month, thereby, it might be a typographical mistake occurred in the order of the Tribunal. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that, the actual income of the deceased determined by the Tribunal at Rs. 1,20,000/- per annum holds good. As per the decision of the Constitution Bench of the 26. Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay SethP, the deductions towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, held at Paragraph No.39 as follows: 39. Before we proceed to analyse the principle for addition of future prospects, we think it seemly to clear the maze which is vividly discernible from Sarla Verma, Reshma Kumari, Rajesh, and Munna Lai Jain. Three aspects need to be clarified. The first one pertains to deduction towards personal and living expenses. In paragraphs 30, Sarla Verma lays down: - “30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandrad, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent 2 2017(6) ALT 60 (SC) 11 decisions of this (2003) 3 SLR (R) 601 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 (l/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (l/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (l/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six." As per the Pranay Sethi case (referred supra), in case 27. the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 25% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was aged between 40 to 50 years (emphasis supplied) In the present case, as per the above-mentioned 28. decision, 25% of actual income has to be added to the income of the deceased towards future prospects as the deceased is aged about 47 years by the date of incident, which is not in dispute. After adding 25% to the income of the deceased towards future prospects her income is determined at Rs.l,50,000/-(Rs. 1,20,000/- + Rs.30,000/-). 12 29. In the case on hand, when there are four claimants depending on the deceased, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be 1/4^^ from the income of the deceased. Then the quantum is determined as Rs.l,12,500/-. 30. Regarding just compensation, in a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court between Sandeep Khanuja vs Atul Dande & Anr3, at Paragraph Nos. 11 and 12 held as follows ; it is now a settled principle, repeatedly stated and restated time and again hy this Court, that in awarding compensation the multiplier method is logically sound and legally well established. This method, known as 'principle of multiplier', has been 11 evolved to quantify the loss of income as a result of death permanent disability suffered in or an accident While applying the multiplier method, future prospects on advancement in life and taken into consideration. In a proceeding under Section 166 of the Act relating to death of the victim, multiplier method is applied after taking into 12. career are ^2017 (3) see 315 /1.^ ■ consideration the loss of income to the family of the deceased that resulted due to the said demise. Thus, the multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimant, as the case may be there should be no departure from the multiplier method on the ground that Section 110-B, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (corresponding to the present provision of Section 168, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) envisaged payment of ‘just’ compensation since the multiplier method is the accepted method for determining and ensuring payment of just compensation and is expected to bring uniformity and certainty of the awards made all over the country. (emphasis supplied) The appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 47 years is 13. The total loss of dependency is 31. determined at Rs.14,62,500/- (Rs.1,12,500/- x 13). 14 32. CONVENTIONAL HEADS: On the point of the conventional heads, as per the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), Magma National Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Ors.4, Smt. Anjali and Others v. Lokendra Rathod and Others, United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and ors.® and Rojalini Nayak and others v. AJit Sahoo and others^, this Court can award the enhanced amounts under the conventional heads of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. The claimants are also entitled for an amount of Rs.48,400/- to each of the claimants, being Rs. 1,93,600/- for loss of spousal, parental and filial consortium, towards funeral Rs.18,150/- and towards loss of estate expenses Rs.18,150/-, respectively as was awarded in Rojalini Nayak case (referred to supra). ^2018) 18 see 130 5(2022) see OnLine Se 1683 ' 5 (2022) see OnLine Se 1683 ,17(2021) 11 see 780 15 33. INTEREST: the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal is Coming to concerned, it is the contention of the appellant/claimant that the Tribunal ought to have granted interest @ 9% per annum instead of 8% per annum. In Kumari Kiran v. Sajjan Singh and others, the Apex Court set aside the judgment of the Tribunal therein awarding interest @ 6% as also the judgment of the High Court awarding interest @ 7.5% and awarded interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the claim National petition. In Rahul Sharma & Another v. Insurance Company Limited and OthersP, the Apex Court from the date of the claim awarded @ 9% interest per annum petition. Also, in Kirthi and another v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited^^, the Apex Court allowed interest @ 9% V. Lokendra per annum and in Smt.Anjali and others Rathod and others^ \ the Apex Court while referring to *(2015) 1 see 539 H2021)6See 188 (2021)2 see 166 (2022) see OnLine Se 1683 \ H 16 Malarmzhi & Ors. v. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. & Ors. 12 allowed interest @ 9% per annum. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid precedents, on the award amount the claimants are entitled to grant interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization. A brief exposition of the calculation made to the compensation is set out infra: 34. arrive at S.No. Heads Calculation 1 The annual income of the deceased. Rs. 1,20,000/- per annum 2 25% of above(l) to be added prospects (Rs. 1,20,000/- Rs.30,000/-) Rs.l,50,000/- + 1 future as 3 ; 1 / 4* to be deducted as ; personal expenses of deceased. Rs.l,12,500/- 4 Compensation arrived at on application of multiplier 13. (Rs.l,12,500/- Rs. 14,62,500/- 13) X 5 Spousal, parental and Rs. 1,93,600/- 12 (2020) 4 see 228 m 17 filial consortium (wife, two children and mother) (Rs.48,400/- X 4) Rs.18,150/ Loss of estate 6 Rs.18,150/- Funeral expenses 7 Rs. 16,92,400/- Total compensation awarded(Rows 4+5+6+7) 35. Therefore, in view of the forgoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal warrants interference by enhancing the compensation from Rs. 12,30,000/- to Rs. 16,92,400/-. It is needless to say that the compensation as claimed on the remaining heads is not entitled by the claimants. Thus, this point is answered accordingly. 36. POINT No.3: In view of the findings on point Nos.l and 2, the order passed by the Tribunal warrants interference regarding quantum of compensation and rate of interest entitled by the 18 claimants only and the rest of the findings arrived by the Tribunal requires no interference of this Court. As such, the appeal filed by the claimants is liable to be considered and appeal preferred by the APSRTC is liable to be dismissed. 37. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A.No.528 of 2024 is allowed. with costs, to enhance the compensation from Rs. 12,30,000/- to Rs. 16,92,400/- with interest at 9% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization against respondent Nos.l and 2/driver and owner of the crime bus. The respondent No.2/APSRTC/owner shall deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of this judgment before the Tribunal. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to receive the enhanced compensation amount equally and they are permitted to withdraw the same with interest accrued thereon. The earlier apportionment made by the Tribunal regarding entitlement of the claimants towards their respective shares shall remained intact. The claimants are directed to pay the deficit Court Fee forthwith before the Tribunal. The Tribunal 19 shall proceed to pay the amount in the aforesaid terms, adjusting the amount, if any, already paid. 38. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A.No.627 of 2024 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. Sd/- K J RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR f //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional Guntur District. (With records if any) 1. The Chairman, Motor District Judge, Guntur, 2. One CC to Sri Kommareddy Divakara Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Peta Gnana Teja, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Sanisetty Venkateswarlu, Advocate [OPUC] Officer, V.R.Section, High Court of A.P at Amaravati. 5. The Section 6. Three CD Copies BSV vna HIGH COURT DATED:21/03/2025 COMMON JUDGMENT AND DECREE MACMA.Nos.528 and 627 of 2024 ALLOWING THE MACMA No.528 OF 2024 WITH COSTS DISMISSING THE MACMA No.627 OF 2024 WITHOUT COSTS