, ■r' ;v ' APHC010038792023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No: 51 OF 2023 Between: 1. B.Pathanna @ B.Pothanna, S/o Thimmappa, aged about 62 dependent, R/o P. Iparsapalle, Kambaduru Mandal, Ananthapur District. 2. B.Shankaramma, W/o Pathanna, aged about 56 years, dependent, R/o P. Iparsapalle, Kambaduru Mandal. Ananthapur District. years. ...Petitioners AND 1. The A.P.S.R.T.C, by its Depot Manager, Rayachoti, being rep.by its Regional Manager, Ananthapur. (Owner of APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 04 Z 0297) 2. Konduru Habibullah, S/o Hasan Sahen, age (major), R/o D.No.2/103/1, Masapet, Rayachoti, Kadapa District (Driver of APSRTC Bus, No AP. 04 Z 0297) ...Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V Act, aggrieved by the decree and Award passed in M.V.O.P.No.62 of 2019 dated 15-11-2022, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -Cum- I Additional District Judge Ananthapuram, Ananthapuram District. > This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and decree of the Tribunal and the material papers in the appeal and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K.V.Vijaya Kumar for the Appellants and Sri Aravala Rama Rao (SC for APSRTC) for the Respondents. This Court doth order and decree as follows: 1. That the M.A.C.M.A be and is hereby allowed in part. 2. That the 1®* respondent Corporation be and is hereby directed to pay the amount of compensation of Rs.24,01,100 /- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 3. That the respondent Corporation be and is hereby directed to deposit the aforesaid enhanced amount of compensation before the Tribunal within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after deducting the amount if any deposited earlier, failing which the shall be recovered as per law. 4. That on such deposit, the claimants be and are hereby entitled to withdraw the same in terms of the Award of the Tribunal. amount Sd/-SHAIKMOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -Cum- I Additional District Judge, Ananthapuram, Ananthapuram District. 2. Two CD Copies To, MV sree HIGH COURT DATED: 29/08/2025 decree MACWIA NO. 51 OF 2023 25 SEP 2025 3: ALLOWING THE MACWIA IN PART APHC010038792023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No: 51 OF 2023 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V Act, aggrieved by the decree and Award passed in M.V.O.P.No.62 of 2019 dated 15-11-2022, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -Cum- I Additional District Judge Ananthapuram, Ananthapuram District. Between: 1. B.Pathanna @ B.Pothanna, S/o Thimmappa, aged about 62 dependent, R/o P. Iparsapalle, Kambaduru Mandal, Ananthapur District. 2. B.Shankaramma, W/o Pathanna, aged about 56 years, dependent, R/o P. Iparsapalle, Kambaduru Mandal, Ananthapur District. years ...Petitioners AND 1. The A.P.S.R.T.C, by its Depot Manager, Rayachoti, being rep.by its Regional Manager, Ananthapur. (Owner of APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 04 Z 0297) 2. Konduru Habibullah, S/o Hasan Sahen, age (major), R/o D.No.2/103/1, Masapet, Rayachoti, Kadapa District (Driver of APSRTC Bus, No AP. 04 Z 0297) ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri K.V.Vijaya Kumar Counsel for the Respondents APSRTC] : Sri Aravala Rama Rao [SC for The Court made the following: APHC010038792023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 51/2023 Between: 1.B.PATHANNA @ B.POTHANNA, S/0 THIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, DEPENDENT 2.B. SHANKARAMMA, W/0 PATHANNA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, DEPENDENT BOTH ARE R/0 P IPARSAPALLE, KAMBADURUMANDL,ANANTHAPURDIST. ...APPELLANT{S) AND 1.THE A P S R T C, BY ITS DEPOT MANAGER, RAYACHOTI, BEING REP.BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, ANANTHAPUR. (OWNER OF APSRTC BUS BEARING NO.AP 04 Z 0297) 2.KONDURU HABIBULLAH, S/0 HASAN SAHEN, AGE (MAJOR), R/0 D.NO.2/103/1, MASAPET, RAYACHOTI, KADAPA DIST. (DRIVER OF APSRTC BUS, NO.AP. 04 Z 0297) ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being aggrieved by the decree and Award passed in M.V.O.P.No.62 of 2019, dated 15-11-2022, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-l Additional District Judge, Ananthapuram, AP. Counsel for the Appellant(S): I.KVVIJAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 2 CGR, J. MAGMA. No.51 of 2023 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN M.A.C.M.A. No.51 of 2023 JUDGMENT: Present appeal is filed by appellants/claimants dis-satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the order, dated 15.11.2022, passed in M.V.O.P.No.62 of 2019 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Ananthapur (“the Tribunal”), by which, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.6,11,000/- on account of death of deceased B.Praveen Kumar, alongwith interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the dte of institution of petition till realisation. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts relating to the present appeal in a nutshell are as follows; (a) Initially, claim was instituted under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-. The deceased, being pillion rider, was proceeding on bike along with rider and another pillion rider and have met with accident on account of dashing with the bus belonging to 1®‘ respondent Corporation. The incident occurred 06.12.2018, and he immediately succumbed on the spot. Based on on 3 CGR, J. MACMA. No.51 of 2023 report, crime No.415 of 2018 of M.R.Palli Police Station, came to be registered for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC against driver of the bus i.e. 2^^ respondent. The deceased was student of final year M.B.A. and aged 24 years. As he was about to complete the course, he was stated to be already given offer letter with a salary Basing on the same, claim was made for of Rs.20,000/- p.m. Rs.30,00,000/-. (b) Respondents 1 and 2 opposed the claim by filing written statement, inter alia, contending that the accident occurred not due to rash and negligent driving of the, bus, but solely on account of the negligence of rider of motorcycle. Further, the rider of the motorcycle did not possess driving licence and as three persons cannot ride the motorcycle, being case of triple riding, is statutorily prohibited, therefore, no liability can be fastened on the respondent-Corporation. (c) Based on the aforesaid pleadings available on record, the Tribunal has framed following issues: “1. Whether the driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 04 Z 0297 has driven the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner on 06.12.2018 and caused accident, in which B.Praveen Kumar/deceased, died in that accident? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, from whom and for what is the quantum of compensation? 3. To what relief?” (d) In support of the case of the claimants, who are father and mother of deceased, 1 claimant father was examined as PW. 1 and got CGR, J. MAGMA. No.51 of 2023 marked Exs.P1 to P11. An independent eyewitness was ^Iso examined as PW.2. For respondents, the driver of the bus has been examined as RW.1 and got marked Ex.RI. (e) On appreciation of evidence on record, the Tribunal has to the conclusion that the accident has occurred not only on accountof rash and negligent act of the driver of the bus, but also even the deceased and other two persons on motorcycle were likely negligent, therefore, was a case of contributory negligence and accordingly, the liability has been fixed at only 50% on the Corporation. With respect to the other issue of quantum of compensation, the Tribunal'has assessed the income of deceased notionally as Rs.8,000/- p.m. and after deducting of it towards personal expenses and on applying multiplier of 18, has computed the loss of income and accordingly, assessed at Rs. 11,52,000/- and further has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate. Accordingly, 50% of the above said amount has been directed to be paid by the Corporation being half of the liability alongwith interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Assailing the same, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants. Heard Sri K.V. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants/ claimants and Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation. come 4. \ / CGR, J. MAGMA. No.51 of 2023 Learned counsel for the appellants/ciaimants mainly contended that the Tribunal ought not to have restricted the liability on the Corporation to the extent of 50% treating that the deceased and rider of motorcycle were equally negligent, meaning thereby the Tribunal fastened contributory negligence on them. In support of the said submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Karnata.ka High Court in K.Yellappa v. N.ManjuL Further, he has also contended that the income of the deceased has been considered as Rs.8,000/- 5. p.m., ignoring Ex.R5, which is an offer letter issued in favour of deceased, which provided salary of Rs.20,000/- p.m., therefore, the Tribunal for no reason discarded the same, which is clearly perverse. Further, he also contended that the Tribunal failed to grant future prospects and other amounts under conventional heads in terms of the ratio laid down in the judgment rendered in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi^. Per contra, learned standing counsel for the Corporation tried to support the impugned order by contending that the findings with respect to contributory negligence rendered by the Tribunal are based on evidence on record, therefore, do not warrant any interference. He further contended that with respect to earnings of deceased, as 6. ’ 2019 ACJ 2512 = 2018 SCC OnLine Kar 3888 : ILR 2020 Kar 5385 2 (2017) 16 see 680 / 6 , CGR, J. MAGMA. No. 51 of 2023 admittedly, deceased was only a student and in the absence of any cogent evidence on record, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income on notional basis at Rs.8,000/- p.m. and it cannot be found fault with and as there was no definite income earned by deceased, question of granting future prospects does not arise, therefore, the Tribunal rightly denied the same. 7. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions of both the learned counsel. 8. Now, the point that arises for consideration in this appeal is: 1) Whether Tribunal was justified in holding that even deceased and rider of motorcycie were equally negligent in causing the accident for fastening contributory negligence and thereby restricting the compensation to 50% of sum so determined? And 2) Whether the compensation determined by Tribunal is just and fair? 9. POINTS 1 & 2 ; The order of the Tribunal is assailed on two cour^ts - one with respect to making even deceased as responsible for cause of accident in a way attributing contributory negligence and second with respect to quantum of compensation. / CGR, J. MAGMA. No.51 of 2023 10. Learned counsel for the appellants, while referring to the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in K.Yellappa’s case\ drawn attention of this Court to paras. 16 to 18, which read as follows; “16. In the present case, it is clear that charge sheet has been filed against the driver of the TATA Goods Vehicle effort has been made to file a complaint against the rider of the motorcycle and in the absence of any steps being taken by the insurer to summon the rider of the motorcycle, the insurer has failed in its duty in proving the defence in terms of the obligation imposed in LAXMlCHAND's case, (supra). In fact, the panchnama at Ex. P.4 reveals that the accident has taken place at a spot where the road curves as ‘L’ shaped and the road was under repair and was being laid out afresh. In the light of such facts, there was a duty on the driver of the goods vehicle to observe a higher degree of care and caution and to impute negligence on the victim is not legally tenable. 17. The deceased being a pillion rider assumes significance as regards the attempt of imputation of negligence to scale down the liability in the light of observations of the Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., (supra), which clearly lays out that the driver could not be said to be an agent of the passenger and there could not be a fiction of the passenger sharing a “right of control” of the operation of the vehicle. It is also clarified that the passenger essentially being innocent, negligence at the most could have been attributed to the owner and driver of the bus. 18. Extending the above mentioned principle to the facts of the present case, the fact that the deceased was a pillion rider would free him from bearing contributory negligence. If it were that the deceased was a driver, the case would have been entirely different, which is not so. Accordingly, there could be no question of imputing negligence to a pillion rider. Hence, the defence of the insurer as regards imposition of liability on the pillion rider on the ground of non- adherence to statutory safety measures is rejected. Accordingly, the question framed is answered in the negative.” no CGR, J. MAGMA. No. 51 of 2023 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohd. Siddique v. National while considering the issue of contributory negligence and whether three persons on motorcycle could have added to the imbalance for causing the accident held as follows; “12. But the above reason, in our view, is flawed. The fact that the deceased was riding on a motorcycle along with the driver and another, may not, by itself, without anything more, make him guilty of contributory negligence. At the most, it would make him guilty of being a party to the violation of ‘the law. Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, imposes a restriction on the driver of a two-wheeled motorcycle, not to carry more than one person on the motorcycle. Section 194-C, inserted by Amendment Act 32 of 2019, prescribes a penalty for violation of safety measures for motorcycle drivers and pillion riders. Therefore, the fact that a person was a pillion rider on a motorcycle along with the driver and one more person on the pillion, may be a violation of the law. But such violation by itself, without anything more, cannot lead to a finding of contributory negligence, unless it is established that his very act of riding along with two others, contributed either to the accident or to the impact of the accident upon the victim. There must either be a causal connection between the violation and the accident or a causal connection between the yiolation an.d the impact of the accident upon the victim. It may so happen at times, that the accident could have been averted or the injuries sustained could have been of a lesser degree, if there had been no violation of the law by the victim. What could otherwise have resulted in a simple injury, might have resulted in a grievous injury or even death due to the violation of the law by the victim. It is in such cases, where, but for the violation of the law, either the accident could have been averted or the impact could have been minimised, that the principle of contributory negligence could be Invoked. It is not the case of the insurer that the accident itself occurred as a result of three persons riding on a motorcycle. It is not even the case of the insurer that the accident would have been averted, if three persons were not riding on the motorcycle. Tpe fact that the motorcycle was hit by the car from behind, is admitted. Interestingly, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the deceased was wearing a helmet and that the deceased was knocked down after the car hit the motorcycle from behind Insurance Co. Ltd.^ I ) are 3 (2020) 3 see 57 CGR, J. MAGMA. No.51 of 2023 all not assailed. Therefore, the finding of the High Court that 2 persons on the pillion of the motorcycle, could have added to the imbalance, is nothing but presumptuous and is not based either upon pleading or upon the evidence on record. Nothing was extracted from PW 3 to the effect that 2 persons on the pillion added to the imbalance.” 12. Even in the present case, deceased was pillion rider and he was not in control of the motorcycle. The rider of the motorcycle was not examined either by the claimants or by the Corporation to speak of whether he had any role in causing the accident. In order to show that accident had occurred and that it was on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, the claimants have relied on evidence of eyewitness PW.2 and Ex.P.1 F.I.R., Ex.P.2 inquest report, Ex.P.11 charge-sheet. Once these documents are exhibited by way of evidence, the burden on the claimants gets discharged and the same now shifts I on the Corporation to disprove the same. Except for examining the driver of the bus, no other witness was examined to support the of the Corporation. However, by way of Ex.R.1 certain photographs with C.D. were produced which essentially relate to post accident. The Tribunal based on Ex.R.1 has come to conclusion that the rider of the motorcycle in order to overtake the jeep, came in extreme right of the road and dashed the bus, therefore, justified in fastening contributory negligence. version 1 10 CGR, J. MAGMA. No.51 of 2023 13. In the judgment referred to above, it was also a case of triple riding, however, as the pillion rider was seen to be not having right of control over the motorcycle and he was not an agent of the rider, it held that such pillion rider would not be attributed with any negligence and utmost such negligence can be attributed to the rider of the 1 motorcycle. Therefore, the Tribunal in the present case, having regard to the facts and circumstances, has wrongly come to conclusion that even pillion rider should be subject to negligence. The said finding rendered by the Tribunal suffers from perversity, therefore, this Court is satisfied that since the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent act of the driver of the bus, the Corporation alone shall be liable for paying the compensation. was 14. Coming to the second aspect of quantum of compensation, the Tribunal mainly assessed the income of the deceased 'as Rs.8,000/- p.m., on notional basis. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, when Ex.PS, which is an offer letter given to the deceased, was exhibited, the Tribunal has given no reason for discarding the same. By the said offer letter, deceased was offered salary of Rs.20,000/- p.m. which was supposed to come into effect from \: V August, 2019. The deceased was pursuing final year M.B.A. course, which was about to be completed some time in April, 2019. Learned CGR, J. MAGMA. No.51 of 2023 counsel for the appellants has relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Dilip Kumar^, which was dealing with a case of deceased, who was pursuing B.Sc. (Nautical Science) was assessed with income of Rs.25,500/- p.m. for an accident occurred in the year 2012. The said judgment has also referred to various other decisions, which considered the income of deceased, who were pursuing various courses at the relevant point of time of accident. 15. Considering the case of claim of compensation on account of death of a student of 21 years of age pursuing a course in Food Technology in SLIET and the year of accident being 2012, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Navjot Singh v. Harpreet Singh^, in the absence of any material evidence in support of the claim of income, has assessed and fixed notional income of Rs. 10,000/- p.m. The same recently has also been referred to and followed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Deepak Singh @ Deepak Chauhan v. Mukesh Kumar®, which also related to an accident of the year 2012. In the present case, the incident occurred in the year 2018. ■'2019ACJ 989 5 2020 see Online SCI 562 ® 2025 see Online 277 12 CGR, J MAGMA. No.51 of 2023 16. In Meena Pawaia v. Ashraf Ali^, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that even in cases of the death of students and bachelors, future prospects are to be allowed. Paras. 15 and 16 of the judgment read as follows; “15. It is not expected that the deceased who was not serving at all, his income is likely to remain static and his income would remain stagnant. As observed in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] to have the perception that he is likely to remain static and his income to remain stagnant is contrary to the fundamental concept of human attitude which always intends to live with dynamism and move and change with the time. Therefore we are of the opinion that even in case of a deceased who was not serving at the time of death and had no income at the time of death, their legal heirs shall also be entitled to future prospects by adding future rise in income as held by 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] i.e. addition of 40% of the income determined on guesswork considering the educational qualification, family background, etc. where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. 16. In light of the above, in the present case, the claimants shall be entitled to future economic loss at Rs 14,000 per month. The deceased at the time of accident was aged between 21-22 years. Therefore, the multiplier has to be adopted/applied considering the age of the deceased and not the age of the parents thus, multiplier 18 would apply. Therefore, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs 15,12,000 towards the future economic loss. Claimants shall also be entitled to Rs 15,000 towards loss of estate, Rs 15,000 towards funeral expenses and Rs 40,000 towards loss of love and affection. Thus, the claimants shall be entitled in all a sum of Rs 15,82,000 with interest thereon at the rate of 7% p.a. from the date of claims petition till realisation.” 17. This Court having given anxious consideration to the various judgments, which are referred to above and considering the facts of the / ^(2021) 17 see 148 13 CGR, J. MAGMA.No.51 of 2023 present case and also the offer which has been placed on record under Ex.P.5, it is considered appropriate to fix the income of deceased as In coming to aforesaid conclusion, this Court' is Rs.15,000/- p.m. oblivious to the fact that the deceased though scored distinction in Intermediate Board Examinations, has secured Second Class marks in B.Com. (Computers). Since the income of deceased is assessed as Rs.15,000/- p.m., the compensation is granted after deducting 50% of the same towards his personal e)^penses. Multiplier of 18 is applied since he is in the age group of 21 to 25 years. By adding of future prospects at the rate of 40% in terms of the ratio laid down in the judgment rendered in Pranay Sethi’s case^, the compensation is awarded. 18. Conventional Heads: On the point of the conventional heads, as per the judgments in Pranay Sethi’s case^. Magma National Insurance Company Limited V. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others^. United India Insurance Co. Ltd V. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Ors.^, and Rojalini Nayak v. Ajit Sahoo^°, this Court award the following amounts under the conventional heads of Loss of Consortium, Loss of Estate and i i ® (2018) 11 see 780 ®(2021) 11 see 780 2024 see Online SC 1901 14 CGR, J. MAGMA. No,51 of 2023 Funeral Expenses, as f48,400/- per claimant each, ?18,150/- and f 18,150/- respectively as was awarded in Rojalini’s case^°. 19. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled for the compensation as mentioned below: Amount Entitled in rupees S.No. Description of the Head ?15,000/-X 12 = Rs.1,80,000/- f72,000/- (i.e., 40% of the income) 1 Net Annual Income Future prospects (at the age of 24 years) 2 Total Income ?2,52,000/- Deduction towards personal expenditure (i.e. 50% ) 3 f 1,26,000/- 4 Total Annual Loss of Dependency ?1,26,000/- 18 xf 1:26,000/- = ?22,68,000/- 5 Multiplier of 18 for the age of 24 years Conventional Heads; (i) Loss of consortium (2 claimants x Rs.48400/-) 6 f96,800/- (ii) Loss of Estate f18,150/- f18,150/- (iii) Funeral expenses 7. Total Compensation f24,01,100/- 20. In the result, this M.A.C.M.A. stands partly allowed and 1 St respondent Corporation is directed to pay the amount of compensation of Rs.24,01,100/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. The 1 respondent Corporation is directed to deposit the aforesaid enhanced amount of compensation before the Tribunal within eight weeks from the date of 15 CGR, J. MAGMA. No. 51 of 2023 receipt of a copy of this judgment, after deducting the amount if any deposited earlier, failing which the amount shall be recovered as per law. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the same in terms of the Award of the Tribunal. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // gf- //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -Cum- I Additional District Judge, Ananthapuram, Ananthapuram District [with records if any] 2. One CC to Sri K.V.Vijaya Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Aravala Rama Rao [SC for APSRTC] [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati 5. Two CD Copies To at MV sree HIGH COURT DATED: 29/08/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA NO. 51 OF 2023 ov o 25 SEP 2© m. f(\ 2: Co ^ Current Seciic^^ ALLOWING THE MACMA IN PART