Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1394 (AP)

Madakam Naga Durga v. Satti Ramana

2023-10-13

B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI, RAVI NATH TILHARI

body2023
JUDGMENT B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI, J. - Heard Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the Claimants, Smt.A.Jayanthi, learned Standing Counsel for Oriental Insurance Company and Sri P.Vinodkumar, learned Standing Counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C. 2. The appeal in MACMA No.2185/2018 is preferred by the claimants/Appellants (in short, the claimants), U/s.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short, the M.V.Act), challenging the judgment of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Prl.District Judge, Eluru (in short, the Tribunal) dtd. 7/5/2018, wherein the Tribunal partly allowing the petition, awarded a compensation of Rs.50, 65, 000.00 with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation, for the death of Madakam Rajulu in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 8/3/2015. 3. The appeal in MACMA No.1972/2018 is preferred by the 4th respondent/Appellant (in short, the A.P.S.R.T.C.) U/s.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short, the M.V.Act), challenging the same judgment and sought for setting aside the judgment and decree passed in M.V.O.P.No.339/2015 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Prl.District Judge, Eluru (in short, the Tribunal). 4. The appeal in MACMA No.3226/2018 is preferred by the 3rd respondent/Appellant (in short, the Oriental Insurance Company) U/s.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short, the M.V.Act), challenging the same judgment and sought for setting aside the judgment and decree passed in M.V.O.P.No.339/2015 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Prl.District Judge, Eluru (in short, the Tribunal). 5. 4. The appeal in MACMA No.3226/2018 is preferred by the 3rd respondent/Appellant (in short, the Oriental Insurance Company) U/s.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short, the M.V.Act), challenging the same judgment and sought for setting aside the judgment and decree passed in M.V.O.P.No.339/2015 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Prl.District Judge, Eluru (in short, the Tribunal). 5. The case of the appellants/claimants is that on 8/3/2015 at about 07.00 p.m. Madakam Rajulu, Police Constable (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') was going to Pulagatigudem village of Jangareddygudem Mandal on his Hero Glamour Motor cycle bearing No.AP 37 BT 5633 to serve summons to witness in Cr.No.62/2013 of Koyyalagudem Police Station; when he reached near Narasannapalem Village on State Highway Road, 1st respondent being the driver of APSRTC Hired Bus bearing No.AP 37 Y 3777, drove it in a rash and negligent manner, without taking any precautions and without giving any indication, applied sudden brakes on the middle of the road; as a result, the deceased dashed the bus from its behind, fell down and sustained multiple and grievous injuries and immediately, he was shifted to Area Hospital, Jangareddygudem, and from there to GSL General Hospital, Rajahmundry for better treatment, and on 20/3/2015 at about 04.40 p.m. the deceased succumbed to injuries sustained in the accident; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of APSRTC hired Bus bearing No.AP 37 Y 3777. The 2nd respondent is the owner of the bus; The 3rd respondent is insurer of the bus, and the said bus was hired with the 4th respondent/APSRTC. The 1st petitioner is wife of the deceased; The 2nd petitioner is the minor son of the deceased; The 3rd petitioner and 4th petitioner are the parents of the deceased; Hence, the claim petition is filed for compensation of Rs.70, 00, 000.00 with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation. 6. The respondents No.1 and 2 i.e., driver of the bus and owner of the bus bearing No.AP 37 Y 3777 did not appear before the learned Tribunal, and were set ex-parte on 10/8/2015. The respondents No.3 and 4 contested the claim petition by filing separate written statements. 7. 6. The respondents No.1 and 2 i.e., driver of the bus and owner of the bus bearing No.AP 37 Y 3777 did not appear before the learned Tribunal, and were set ex-parte on 10/8/2015. The respondents No.3 and 4 contested the claim petition by filing separate written statements. 7. The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company filed written statement, contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of deceased; The 1st respondent had no driving license, 2nd respondent violated the terms and conditions of the policy and the bus was hired with the 4th respondent, and as such, they are not liable to pay compensation. 8. The 4th respondent/APSRTC filed written statement, contending that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of deceased; The 2nd respondent is original owner and the 3rd respondent in insurer and the bus was hired with APSRTC, and as such, APSRTC is not liable to pay compensation. 9. Basing on the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the pleaded accident dtd. 8/3/2015 has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC Hire Bus bearing No.AP 37Y 3777 (crime vehicle) by 1st respondent and whether the deceased Madakam Rajulu died to the said accident? 2. Whether the crime vehicle was owned by 2nd respondent was insured with the 3rd respondent, and was hired with 4th respondent as on the date of accident? 3. Whether there are any violations of conditions of policy? 4. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents? 5. To what relief? 10. On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws-1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-9 and Exs.X-1 to X-3 were marked. On behalf of the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company R.W-1 was examined and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked. No evidence was adduced for APSRTC. 11. The Tribunal on consideration of the evidence and material available on record, on issue No.1 held that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the 1st respondent/driver of the bus bearing No.AP 37 Y 3777. On behalf of the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company R.W-1 was examined and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked. No evidence was adduced for APSRTC. 11. The Tribunal on consideration of the evidence and material available on record, on issue No.1 held that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the 1st respondent/driver of the bus bearing No.AP 37 Y 3777. The Tribunal on issues No.2 to 4 held that the claimants in all entitled to Rs.50, 65, 000.00 towards compensation with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation and allowed the petition partly, against the respondents No.1 to 4 that they are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 12. The Tribunal has had awarded the above compensation amount under various heads as follows: 13. The learned counsel for claimants vehemently argued that the learned Tribunal committed a grave error by not applying the Revised Pay Scales as per PRC 2015, and there by committed material irregularity calculating the compensation under the head loss of dependency, on the salary paid to the deceased before revision, for the month of February 2015, though as per Government Orders, Pay Revision Commission 2015 was applied with effect from 1/7/2013 onwards as mentioned in Ex.X-3 i.e., copy of service register of the deceased. He would further contend that as per Ex.X-3, PRC 2015 scales were applied to the deceased posthumously with effect from 1/7/2013, and accordingly, the pay scale of the deceased was revised with effect from 1/7/2013 in the time scale of Rs.16, 400.00 45, 870/- and his pay was fixed at Rs.21, 820.00 with effect from 1/7/2013 in the above time scale of pay; and further, sanctioned annual grade increment at Rs.640.00 raising his pay from Ras.21, 820/- to Rs.22, 460.00 with effect from 1/1/2014, and further, another annual increment was sanctioned with effect from 1/1/2015 @ Rs.640.00 and his pay was fixed at Rs.23, 100.00 with effect from 1/1/2015, and therefore, as per Ex.X-3 service register and proceedings indicated his basic pay as on the date of his death would be Rs.23, 100.00, Dearness Allowance Rs.2, 784.00, House Rent Allowance Rs.4, 620.00, Compensatory Allowance Rs.300.00, R.A. Rs.175.00 and KMA Rs.150.00 and total emoluments estimated are at Rs.31, 129.00 per month on the date of his death. 14. 14. The learned counsel for claimants would further submit that as per Ex.X-3, PRC 2015 was notionally applied from 1/7/2013 to 1/6/2014 without monetary benefit, and from 2/6/2014 to 31/3/2015, Government in its order mentioned that the arrears relating to this period will be paid later by separate orders, and from 1/4/2015 onwards the arrears will be paid in cash, and admittedly, subsequently Government issued orders for payment of arrears for the period from 2/6/2014 to 31/3/2015 and therefore, these circumstances would establish that as per the revised pay scales 2015, the salary of the deceased was at Rs.31, 129.00 per month as mentioned in Ex.X-3 service register. He would further contend that but the learned trial Judge did not consider the above admitted facts found in Ex.X-3 and rejected the contention of the claimants on the ground that the claimants are entitled to 50% future prospects on yearly income of the deceased. and this observation of the learned Tribunal is wrong in view of the fact that PRC 2015 was applied to all employees of the Government of Andhra Pradesh State with effect from 1/7/2013 and monetary benefit was paid with effect from 2/6/2014, and as such, the loss of dependency shall be calculated as per Revised Pay Scales 2015, and the claimants are entitled to 50% future prospects on the such amount towards loss of future prospects, and in support of his contention he relied on the judgment of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in the case of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Gali Aruna and others, 1994 (3) ALT 58 (D.B.). 15. The learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent/Oriental Insurance Company Limited contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of deceased and that the 1st respondent had no driving license, 2nd respondent violated the terms and conditions of the policy and that the bus was hired with the 4th respondent, and as such, the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. 16. The learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent/APSRTC contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of deceased and that the 2nd respondent is the original owner and the 3rd respondent is the insurer and the bus was hired with APSRTC, and as such, the 4th respondent/APSRTC is not liable to pay compensation. 17. 16. The learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent/APSRTC contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of deceased and that the 2nd respondent is the original owner and the 3rd respondent is the insurer and the bus was hired with APSRTC, and as such, the 4th respondent/APSRTC is not liable to pay compensation. 17. In the light of above rival contentions of the claimants, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and APSRTC, the points that would arise for consideration in the three appeals are as under: 1. Whether the accident was occurred due to rash or negligence driving of the 1st respondent/driver of the bus bearing No.AP 37 Y 3777 or the deceased? 2. Whether the 3rd respondent/Oriental Insurance Company Limited is not liable to indemnify the insured/owner (2nd respondent)? 3. Whether the 4th respondent/APSRTC is not jointly and severally liable along with other respondents for the compensation? 4. Whether the learned Tribunal committed error by not applying new pay scales of PRC 2015 to the deceased, and thereby not awarded just compensation to the claimants? 5. To what relief? 18. POINT No.1: The contention of the 3rd respondent/Oriental Insurance Company and APSRTC as well is that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle bearing No.AP 37 BT 5633 by the deceased. The contention of the claimants is that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligence of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 37 Y 3777. Their further contention is that the deceased on the date of accident was going to Putlagatlagudem Village of Jangareddygudem Mandal on his motor cycle bearing No.AP 37 BT 5633 to serve summons to a witness in a case, and when he reached the place of accident, the APSRTC hired bus bearing No.AP 37 Y 3777 was going ahead of the motor cycle and it was suddenly stopped in the middle of the road without any indication for stopping the bus, and as a result, the deceased dashed the bus from its behind, fell down and sustained multiple grievous injuries, and later succumbed to injuries on 20/3/2015. 19. The claimants in order to establish that the accident was occurred due to rash or negligent driving of the 1st respondent/driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 37 Y 3777 has examined Mr. 19. The claimants in order to establish that the accident was occurred due to rash or negligent driving of the 1st respondent/driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 37 Y 3777 has examined Mr. Shaik Rahamtullah (P.W-3) as an eye witness to the occurrence of accident. His chief-examination affidavit would disclose that the accident occurred due to rash and negligence of the bus driver as he stopped the bus all of sudden without any signal. In the cross-examination of 3rd respondent, it was elicited that the shop of P.W-3 is located near the place of accident. It was also established that he was cited as a witness in the criminal case filed by the police as eye witness. In the cross-examination, he categorically deposed that as the bus was suddenly stopped, the motor cycle dashed the bus from behind and fell on the road. Nothing was elicited to dis-believe his evidence. The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company and 4th respondent/APSRTC at length cross-examined P.W-3, but nothing was elicited to probable their plea that the deceased was driving the motor cycle either in a rash or negligent manner, and therefore, the accident was occurred. 20. Therefore, it would establish that the accident was occurred as bus was stopped suddenly in the middle of the road without any signal. The driver of the bus was not examined either by the Insurance company or APSRTC to prove the contention of the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company and 4th respondent/APSRTC. In that view of the matter, we do not find any ground to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the point is answered. 21. POINTS No.2 AND 3: The learned counsel for the 4th respondent/APSRTC would contend that the learned Tribunal erroneously fastened liability on the 4th respondent jointly along with other respondents, though APSRTC only the hired bus belonging to the 2nd respondent/owner, insured with the 3rd respondent, and that as per hire agreement the owner and the insured are alone liable to pay compensation. 22. The learned Tribunal in its order held the respondents No.1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation awarded to the claimants on the ground that as per Sec. 2 (30) of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, the owner means, registered owner and in the case of agreement of hypothecation or lease agreement, the person in possession of the vehicle also comes under the purview of owner. The facts and circumstances of the case would disclose that the 2nd respondent is owner of the bus, and she insured the said bus with the 3rd respondent under Ex.B-1 insurance policy, and hired the bus to the 4th respondent/APSRTC. Ex.B-1 policy would show that an amount of Rs.125.00 was paid by the insurer towards indemnity to hirer, under IMT-44. 23. It is pertinent to note down that Ex.B-1 is filed by the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company. There is no dispute that the owner shall be responsible for all the claims that may arise due to statutory violations like claims due to accident payable under the Motor Vehicles Act. 24. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others, 2021 SC 891. considered the questions that "if an insured vehicle is plying under an agreement with the Corporation on the route as per permit granted in favour of the Corporation and in case of any accident during that period, whether the Insurance Company would be liable to pay compensation or would it be the responsibility of the Corporation or the owner?" and held that "High Court was not justified in fastening the liability upon the appellant-Corporation", and further observed that "this question has been answered in the case of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs.Kulsum and others, 2011 (8) SCC 142 . and Full Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of APSRTC, rep. by its General Manger and others Vs. B.Kanakaratnabai and others, 2013 ACJ 1593 ". 25. It is the case of the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company that the owner of the bus violated terms of the insurance policy on the ground that the 4th respondent was not having route permit to ply the vehicle as stage carriage and that driver of the bus was not having licence, but the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company did not adduce any evidence to prove that the owner has violated the terms of permit by allowing the APSRTC to run the bus as stage carriage though there is no such permit or that driver was not having licence. When the Insurance Company has taken plea that owner has violated the terms of the insurance policy or permit, the burden is on the insurance company to prove the said violations. When the Insurance Company has taken plea that owner has violated the terms of the insurance policy or permit, the burden is on the insurance company to prove the said violations. In the case on hand, no evidence was placed before the learned Tribunal to establish the alleged violations. In that view of the matter, we hold that the learned Tribunal committed an error fastening liability on the APSRTC also jointly along with respondents No.1, 2 and 3. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion the 4th respondent/APSRTC is not liable to pay compensation jointly and severally along with respondents No.1, 2 and 3 in the light of the principles laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others stated above, which are applicable to facts of this case. Therefore, the finding of the learned Tribunal that APSRTC is jointly liable be set aside. Hence, we hold that the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 alone are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants. Accordingly, the points No.2 and 3 are answered. 26. POINT No.4: We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for claimants and also perused the judgment of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Gali Aruna and others. 27. It is an admitted fact that the deceased died on 20/3/2015. Ex.A-7 is a pay certificate issued by the employer of the deceased to the claimants. Ex.X-1 is copy of the said pay certificate issued by the employer of the deceased and produced by P.W-2 examined by the claimants. Ex.A-7 and Ex.X-1 contains the same information showing the salary paid to the deceased for the month of February 2015 i.e., prior to his death. 28. The learned trial Judge had considered the loss of dependency basing on the salary particulars provided in the above pay certificate issued by the employer of the deceased. The learned trial judge considering Ex.X-2 estimated pay certificate issued by the employer based on PRC 2015 and Ex.X-3 is photo copy of service register of the deceased containing information of pay fixation based on PRC, 2015, observed that as per circular memo No.385-A/29/A2/HRM.VBC/2014, dtd. The learned trial judge considering Ex.X-2 estimated pay certificate issued by the employer based on PRC 2015 and Ex.X-3 is photo copy of service register of the deceased containing information of pay fixation based on PRC, 2015, observed that as per circular memo No.385-A/29/A2/HRM.VBC/2014, dtd. 26/5/2015, the pay of deceased was revised from 1/4/2013 and that though pay of deceased was revised from 1/4/2013, he did not receive the revised pay prior to his death and considered old salary only for income. 29. The learned Judge of the Tribunal rejected the claim for revised pay of Rs.31, 129.00 per month on the ground that claimants are entitled to 50% future prospects on the yearly income of the deceased basing on old pay scale. Now the question is it a tenable ground for rejecting claim based on PRC, 2015. 30. Upon consideration of the above facts and circumstances we are of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal committed a grave mistake rejecting the above contention of the claimants. It shall be remembered that compensation awarded must be a just compensation basing on established income of the deceased and entitled as per facts and law. The first reason is that the learned Tribunal went on a wrong premise that the petitioners are entitled to 50% future prospects on the yearly income of the deceased on the old salary, losing site of the important fact that the petitioners entitled to 50% future prospects, even if the salary is considered as per PRC 2015. 31. The second ground is that the learned Tribunal did not assign any tenable reason for not considering the revised pay scales as per PRC 2015 though Ex.X-3 copy of service register containing the revised pay fixation proceedings are placed before the learned Tribunal, disclosing the pay of deceased was revised from 1/7/2013. 32. 31. The second ground is that the learned Tribunal did not assign any tenable reason for not considering the revised pay scales as per PRC 2015 though Ex.X-3 copy of service register containing the revised pay fixation proceedings are placed before the learned Tribunal, disclosing the pay of deceased was revised from 1/7/2013. 32. We have perused Ex.X-3 copy of service register of deceased and found that the proceedings relating to application of PRC 2015 to the deceased mentioned there in would show that PRC, 2015 was applied to the deceased with effect from 1/7/2013, and as per Government Orders, it was applied to him from 1/7/2013 to 1/6/2014 notionally, and in part-II, it was applied from 1/6/2014 to 31/3/2015 stating that the arrears of pay on this fixation, will be paid as per order issued separately by the Government of Andhra Pradesh later, and in part-III of the said proceedings, it was applied from 1/4/2015 onwards i.e., for the current period by paying cash immediately. 33. There is no dispute that Government of Andhra Pradesh issued proceedings later for the period covered by 2/6/2014 to 31/3/2015 for payment of cash towards arrears, to the Government employees of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, the revised pay scales of PRC 2015 were applied to the deceased with effect from 1/7/2013 by paying arrears with effect from 2/6/2014 onwards. The salary according to the revised scale of pay found in Ex.X-3 coupled with Ex.X-2 were made applicable to the deceased with effect from 1/7/2013, it indicates that the deceased would have been receiving a monthly salary of Rs.31, 129.00, if he is alive and therefore, this amount have to be taken into consideration for arriving at the multiplicand. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the salary, which will have to be taken into consideration for arriving at the multiplicand should be as per Ex.X-2 and not as per Ex.X-1 or Ex.A-7. 34. The learned Tribunal has deducted 10% of the salary of deceased towards income tax. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the salary, which will have to be taken into consideration for arriving at the multiplicand should be as per Ex.X-2 and not as per Ex.X-1 or Ex.A-7. 34. The learned Tribunal has deducted 10% of the salary of deceased towards income tax. The learned counsel for claimants contended that the Tribunal committed mistake by deducting 10% of the salary of deceased towards income tax and he would further contend that in case the income of the victim is only from salary, the presumption would be that the employer U/s.192(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has deducted the tax at source from the employee's salary, and in case if an objection is raised by any party, the objector is required to prove by producing evidence such as Last Pay Certificate to suggest that the employer failed to deduct TDS from the salary of the employee, and in the case on hand, the respondents did not produce any evidence to show that the employer did not deduct TDS from the salary of the employee, and hence, the learned Tribunal committed error in deducting 10% of the salary towards income tax. In support of his arguments, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar and others Vs. Kishore Dan and others, 2013(7) SCC 476 . 35. The Hon'ble Apex Court in para 23 of the above judgment held as under: "In view of the finding as recorded above and the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as discussed, we hold that the High Court was wrong in deducting 20% from the salary of the deceased towards income-tax, for calculating the compensation. As per law, the presumption will be that employer-State Government at the time of payment of salary deducted incometax on the estimated income of the deceased employee from the salary and in absence of any evidence, we hold that the salary as shown in the Last Pay Certificate at Rs.8, 920.00 should be accepted which if rounded off comes to Rs.9, 000.00 for calculating the compensation payable to the dependent(s)." 36. In the case on hand, Ex.A-7, Exs.X-1 to X-3 are placed before the learned Tribunal. In fact, all these documents are placed before the Tribunal at the instance of the petitioners. In the case on hand, Ex.A-7, Exs.X-1 to X-3 are placed before the learned Tribunal. In fact, all these documents are placed before the Tribunal at the instance of the petitioners. Ex.A-7 and Ex.X-1 are pay certificates as stated above and they contain the same information. 37. The learned counsel for respondents basing on Ex.A-7 and Ex.X-1 pay certificates produced for the petitioners would argue that they does not disclose anything that the employer deducted TDS from the salary of the employee, and therefore, deduction of 10% of the salary amount towards tax by the Tribunal is correct. 38. We have perused Ex.A-7 and Ex.X-1 pay certificates which are issued for the payment of salary of deceased for the month of February, 2015. Ex.A-7 or Ex.X-1 or even the estimated salary in Ex.X-2 does not contain any proof showing the employer deducted TDS from the salary of the employee, except a deduction towards profession tax. Therefore, the contention of the claimants that it shall be presumed that the employer made TDS from the salary of the deceased is not tenable. Accordingly, we do not find any error committed by the learned Tribunal by deducting 10% of the salary towards income tax. Same shall be deducted towards income tax in the calculation of the compensation amount towards loss of dependency. Accordingly, the same is re-calculated as per the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Sarla Verma and another Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others, 2009 ACJ 1298 . National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . and Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, 2018 ACJ 2782 . which would be as follows: 39. The Tribunal awarded interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation. We do not find any ground to interfere with the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition, till the date of realisation, in view of the Hon'ble Apex Court judgement in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mannat Johal, 2019 ACJ 1849 (SC). Accordingly, this point is answered. 40. We do not find any ground to interfere with the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition, till the date of realisation, in view of the Hon'ble Apex Court judgement in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mannat Johal, 2019 ACJ 1849 (SC). Accordingly, this point is answered. 40. In the light of findings on points No.1 to 4, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to allow the appeal filed by the claimants partly vide MACMA No.2185/2018 and the appeal filed by the 4th respondent/APSRTC vide MACMA No.1972/2018 be allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Tribunal vide MVOP No.339/2015 to the extent of our findings stated above, and the appeal filed by the 3rd respondent/Oriental Insurance Company in MACMA No.3226/2018 is liable to be dismissed. 41. In the result, the appeal vide MACMA No.1972/2018 filed by the APSRTC is allowed holding that 4th respondent/APSRTC is not liable to pay compensation jointly and severally along with the respondents No.1 to 3 and thereby, the claim petition against the 4th respondent/APSRTC is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 42. The appeal vide MACMA No.2185/2018 filed by the claimants is allowed partly, by modifying the judgment and decree passed by the learned Tribunal in MVOP No.339/2015 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Prl. District Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District, holding that the appellants/claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.61, 61, 456.00 (Rupees Sixty One Lakhs, Sixty One Thousand, Four Hundred and Fifty Six only) with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation, instead of Rs.50, 65, 000.00 awarded by the learned Tribunal and that the respondents No.1 to 3 only are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount. There shall be no order as to costs. 43. The appeal vide MACMA No.3226/2018 filed by the 3rd respondent/Oriental Insurance Company is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 44. The 3rd respondent/Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Tanuku, is directed to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.61, 61, 456.00 (Rupees Sixty One Lakhs, Sixty One Thousand, Four Hundred and Fifty Six only) along with accrued interest thereon, within one month from the date of judgment. There shall be no order as to costs. 44. The 3rd respondent/Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Tanuku, is directed to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.61, 61, 456.00 (Rupees Sixty One Lakhs, Sixty One Thousand, Four Hundred and Fifty Six only) along with accrued interest thereon, within one month from the date of judgment. In the event of the 3rd respondent/Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Tanuku, had already deposited some amount, the said amount has to be excluded, and the balance amount shall be deposited within one month from the date of this common judgment. 45. On such deposit, the 1st claimant being the wife of deceased is entitled to a sum of Rs.35, 61, 456.00 (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs, Sixty One Thousand, Four Hundred and Fifty Six only) and she is permitted to withdraw the said amount along with the accrued interest thereon. The 2nd claimant being the minor son of the deceased is entitled to a sum of Rs.12, 00, 000.00 (Rupees Twelve Lakhs only), and the same shall be deposited in any nationalised bank, till the 2nd claimant attains the age of majority, and after attaining majority, the 2nd claimant is permitted to withdraw the said amount, along with the accrued interest thereon. The claimants No.3 and 4, being father and mother of the deceased are entitled to an amount of Rs.7, 00, 000.00 (Rupees Seven Lakhs only) each, and they are permitted to withdraw the said amount along with the accrued interest thereon. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.