JUDGMENT: This appeal is preferred by the claimant, challenging the award dated 10.11.2014 passed in M.V.O.P.No.275/2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl.District Judge, Visakhapatnam, (for short ‘the Tribunal’), wherein the Tribunal partly allowed the petition, awarded compensation of Rs.5,30,000/-with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation, for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties before the tribunal. 3. As seen from the record, the petitioner filed the application U/s.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-on account of the injuries and disability sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 28.05.2010. 4. The facts would show that on 28.05.2010 at about 10.30 hours while the petitioner was going in tanker lorry bearing No.AP31X 4239 being its cleaner and reached Kotha Narayanapuram village, Thallada Mandal, Khammam District, which was driven by its driver, in a rash and negligent manner, at high speed and without following the traffic rules, dashed one stationed lorry bearing No.AP 28 TB 3678, resulting which the petitioner sustained grievous multiple injuries and bleeding injuries all over the body, including grievous crush injury to his right leg ankle bone. Immediately, the petitioner was shifted to Khammam Head Quarters Hospital, wherein the petitioner underwent treatment as in-patient and also undergone major operation to his right leg and that right leg was amputated. The petitioner incurred huge amount towards medicine, extra nourishment and operation charges. Thallada police registered a case in Cr.No.57/2010 for the offence punishable U/s.337, 338 of Indian Penal Code against the driver of said tanker lorry. Due to the said accident, the petitioner permanently disabled and lost his earning power, and became mentally disturbed. The petitioner is only earning person of his entire family. The petitioner is unable to walk and leading a miserable life. The 1st respondent is the owner of tanker lorry, and the 2nd respondent is insurer of the said lorry, and both the respondents are jointly and severally liable for compensation. 5. The petitioner is only earning person of his entire family. The petitioner is unable to walk and leading a miserable life. The 1st respondent is the owner of tanker lorry, and the 2nd respondent is insurer of the said lorry, and both the respondents are jointly and severally liable for compensation. 5. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent filed counter, denying the material averments of the claim application, contended that the 1st petitioner worked as cleaner on the tanker lorry belongs to respondent, but he was taken in service as cleaner on temporary basis and it is duly insured with the 2nd respondent. This respondent is not aware how the accident took place and so also the amputation of the leg of petitioner, due to the said accident. The 1st respondent is not responsible for the alleged accident. The claim is exaggerative and petitioner is not entitled for compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. 6. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed written statement, while traversing the material averments with regard to manner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle, nature of injuries, medical expenditure, age and avocation of the petitioner, alleged permanent disability, liability to pay compensation, and contended that without causing prejudice to the rights of 2nd respondent, it does not admit that the vehicle belongs to the 1st respondent was insured with the 2nd respondent and even if any policy was issued, unless the said policy was complied U/s.64-VB of the Insurance Act, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay compensation. There is no negligent act on the part of driver of 1st respondent. The 1st respondent is not holding a valid and effective driving license by the time of accident, and he was not qualified for holding or obtaining such driving license. The 1st respondent contravened the provisions of M.V.Act and committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy. The compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-claimed by the petitioner is high and excessive and without any proof or basis. The rate of interest claimed by the petitioner @ 18% p.a. is high and excessive and the same is liable to be scaled down to 6% p.a. as per the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. 7. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. The rate of interest claimed by the petitioner @ 18% p.a. is high and excessive and the same is liable to be scaled down to 6% p.a. as per the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. 7. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the road accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tanker lorry bearing No.AP 31X 4239? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 8. To substantiate his claim, the petitioner examined P.Ws-1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-7 and Ex.C-1. No witness was examined on behalf of the respondents, but with consent Ex.B-1 copy of insurance policy was marked. 9. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1 to 3, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-7 and Ex.C-1, held that the petitioner sustained injuries in the road accident due to rash and negligent driving of tanker lorry bearing No. AP 31X 4239, and further taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1 to 3 corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-7 and Ex.C-1, awarded a compensation of Rs.5,30,000/-with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit. 10. The contention of the appellant/claimant is that the Tribunal failed to award just compensation basing on permanent disability suffered by the claimant, on account of which the claimant permanently disabled for doing cleaner work which he was doing at the time of accident. The other contention of the appellant/claimant is that the Tribunal wrongly applied multiplier ‘16’ instead of ‘18’, though held that the age of the injured is 27 years at the time of accident, and therefore, the claimant is entitled to more compensation than awarded by the Tribunal. 11. The respondent/Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal has awarded just compensation basing on the evidence of claimant, and the doctor examined by the claimant, and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. 12. In the light of above rival contentions, the points that would arise for consideration in this appeal are as under: 1. Whether the Tribunal did not award just compensation to the claimant? 2. To what relief? 13. 12. In the light of above rival contentions, the points that would arise for consideration in this appeal are as under: 1. Whether the Tribunal did not award just compensation to the claimant? 2. To what relief? 13. POINT No.1: The case of the claimant is that he is working as a lorry cleaner at the time of accident and on 28.05.2010 at about 10.30 a.m. he was travelling in a tanker lorry bearing No.AP 31X 4239; the driver of the 1st respondent drove the said lorry in a rash and negligent manner and dashed a stationed lorry bearing No.AP 28 TB 3678 in a place near Kotha Narayanapuram Village, Thallada Mandal, Khammam District; the claimant sustained grievous injuries including crush injury to the right ankle bones and he was shifted to Khammam Head Quarters Hospital, later to King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam; the right leg of the claimant was amputated up to the level of knee; he incurred heavy amounts towards treatment, medicines, extra nourishment and transportation charges; further, on account of the amputation, he is permanently disabled to attend the work of cleaner, and thereby he lost his livelihood; the Medical Board of Visakhapatnam assessed the permanent disability as 60%; therefore, he filed the petition claiming a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-as under: I. For Special Damages:- a. Loss of earnings 50,000-00 b. Transport expenses 10,000-00 c. Extra Nourishment & Medicines 50,000-00 II. For general damages: a. Compensation for pain and suffering 2,00,000-00 b. Compensation for loss of earning power. 3,00,000-00 c. Compensation for continuing permanent disability. 1,90,000-00 Total Rs .8,00,000-00 14. The Tribunal on considering the evidence of the claimant, the doctor, who treated the claimant (P.W-2), and the person working in the Transport Company, where the claimant worked as cleaner prior to the accident (P.W-3) and also Exs.A-1 to A-7 and Ex.C-1 filed by the claimant, opined that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry of the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company did not assail the said finding of the Tribunal. 15. When coming to awarding compensation, the Tribunal considering the evidence of the claimant and P.W-3, fixed the income of the claimant notionally as Rs.5,000/-per month, and arrived the annual income of the claimant as Rs.5,000 x 12 = Rs.60,000/. The Tribunal applied multiplier ‘16’ while considering the physical features of the claimant as 30 years. 16. 15. When coming to awarding compensation, the Tribunal considering the evidence of the claimant and P.W-3, fixed the income of the claimant notionally as Rs.5,000/-per month, and arrived the annual income of the claimant as Rs.5,000 x 12 = Rs.60,000/. The Tribunal applied multiplier ‘16’ while considering the physical features of the claimant as 30 years. 16. The contention of the claimant is aged 27 years. It is pertinent to note down that even if the age of the claimant is considered as 27 or 30 years, the multiplier as per judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case is ‘17’ only, for the persons in the age group of 26-30 years. 17. The contention of the claimant is that as per Ex.A-7 physical disability was fixed as 60%, but the Tribunal considered it only as 50%, instead of 60%. It is pertinent to note down that Ex.A-7 was issued by King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam. He did not examine the author of Ex.A-7. The claimant has examined a Medical Officer from King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam, who treated him for the injuries sustained in the accident, and conducted operation for amputation of the right leg due to the crush injury sustained in the accident. 18. P.W-2 evidence would establish that while he was working as Assistant Professor in Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam, he treated the claimant, who was admitted in King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam. He further deposed that the claimant sustained crush injury in his right leg, and during the course of treatment, the right leg was amputated just below the knee cap, and Ex.C-1 pertains to the treatment summary of the claimant. As per Ex.C-1, the claimant sustained cascanum and fracture of the talus and fracture of the medial malleolus, and they are grievous in nature. On account of the said three injuries, and due to damages of the soft tissues, resulted amputation of right leg and that he was admitted in King George Hospital on 29.05.2010 and discharged on 09.08.2010, and operation was conducted to the right leg on 04.06.2010, and on the same day, amputation was made. In the cross-examination of the Insurance Company, he deposed that the extent of left over portion after amputation is roughly 5 inches, and on account of amputation the remaining portion left is 5 inches below the knee and in his opinion, the disability sustained by the claimant is roughly 50%. In the cross-examination of the Insurance Company, he deposed that the extent of left over portion after amputation is roughly 5 inches, and on account of amputation the remaining portion left is 5 inches below the knee and in his opinion, the disability sustained by the claimant is roughly 50%. 19. The Tribunal in the light of above evidence, did not accept Ex.A-7 disability certificate and fixed the disability sustained by the claimant as 50%, in view of the evidence of P.W-2, who treated the claimant and conducted operation and amputated the right leg due to crush injury. 20. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another, 2011 (1) SCC 343 , held in para No.12 as under: “The Tribunal should also act with caution, if it proposed to accept the expert evidence of doctors who did not treat the injured but who give `ready to use' disability certificates, without proper medical assessment. There are several instances of unscrupulous doctors who without treating the injured, readily giving liberal disability certificates to help the claimants. But where the disability certificates are given by duly constituted Medical Boards, they may be accepted subject to evidence regarding the genuineness of such certificates. The Tribunal may invariably make it a point to require the evidence of the Doctor who treated the injured or who assessed the permanent disability. Mere production of a disability certificate or Discharge Certificate will not be proof of the extent of disability stated therein unless the Doctor who treated the claimant or who medically examined and assessed the extent of disability of claimant, is tendered for cross-examination with reference to the certificate. If the Tribunal is not satisfied with the medical evidence produced by the claimant, it can constitute a Medical Board (from a panel maintained by it in consultation with reputed local Hospitals/Medical Colleges) and refer the claimant to such Medical Board for assessment of the disability.” 21. In the light of above principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, there are no grounds to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal for not accepting the disability certificate, as claimant did not examine the author of the certificate. 22. In the light of above principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, there are no grounds to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal for not accepting the disability certificate, as claimant did not examine the author of the certificate. 22. The learned counsel for appellant would submit that the Tribunal did not consider the percentage of loss of earning capacity on account of permanent disability suffered by the claimant, and the Tribunal mechanically considered the permanent disability deposed by P.W-2 as 50% as loss of earning capacity. The learned counsel for appellant/claimant further would submit that the claimant admittedly was working as a lorry cleaner prior to the date of accident and due to amputation of right leg, he cannot attend the duties of cleaner in a lorry, and therefore, the loss of earning capacity must be held as 100%, but not 50%. In support of his contentions, he relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Mohan Soni Vs. Ram Avtar Tomar and others. The learned counsel for appellant would further submit that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the loss of earning capacity of the claimant shall be treated as 100% as he was unable to do the work, which he was doing at the time of accident, and further, after accident he is unable to do any work due to amputation. 23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Soni Vs. Ram Avtar Tomar and Others, 2012 ACJ 583 held in para No.9, 10, 11 and 13 as under: “In a more recent decision in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and another, (2011) 1 SCC 343 , this Court considered in great detail the correlation between the physical disability suffered in an accident and the loss of earning capacity resulting from it. In paragraphs 10, 11 and 13 of the judgment in Raj Kumar, this Court made the following observations: "Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation.” “What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that the percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation. (See for example, the decisions of this Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC 254 and Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC.” “Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood." 24. The Tribunal considered the loss of earning capacity of the claimant as 50%, basing on the evidence of doctor (P.W-2), who deposed about the permanent disability of the claimant as 50%. The Tribunal did not consider the fact that the appellant used to earn his livelihood as a lorry cleaner, and lost the job and now he cannot do any work due to amputation. The tribunal mechanically fixed the functional disability as 50%. The evidence of P.W-3 would establish that after accident, the appellant was not attending the duty of lorry cleaner. The evidence of doctor (P.W-2) would establish that the right leg of the claimant was amputated below the knee level due to crush injury sustained in the accident. The appellant was aged only 27 years at the time of accident. At the young age, he lost his right leg due to accident. 25. The Insurance Company in the cross-examination of the doctor made an attempt to say that the amputation of leg was not due to injury sustained in the accident. But nothing was elicited in the cross-examination of P.W-2 to establish the said contention. On the other hand, the evidence of P.W-2 categorically would establish that the amputation was done due to the crush injury sustained by the claimant in the accident. Hence, the claimant suffered permanent physical disability to his right leg as 50%, but he lost his employment as a lorry cleaner, and he deposed that he could not find any job subsequent to the accident due to the amputation. There is no contra evidence to establish that he is doing some lesser work inspite of amputation, and earning income. 26. There is no contra evidence to establish that he is doing some lesser work inspite of amputation, and earning income. 26. In those circumstances, the loss of earning capacity of the appellant may be 100%, but in no case it would be less than 90% as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Soni Vs. Ram Avtar Tomar and others. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the compensation for the loss of future earnings shall be computed on the basis of loss of functional disability as 100%. 27. The appellant contended that he was receiving salary of Rs.4,500/-per month, and also getting Rs.100/-per day towards batta as on the date of accident. The appellant has examined P.W-3, who is employee in a Road Transport Company stating that the appellant was working in their company as lorry cleaner and he was paid Rs.4,500/-per month only and Rs.100/-per day towards batta. The Tribunal did not accept the evidence of P.W-3 as he failed to produce any relevant records in support of certificate issued in favour of the claimant vide Ex.A-6 placed before the Tribunal. Ex.A-4 was issued simply on a letter head of a Transport Company in the name of Prasannanjali Road Lines, Visakhapatnam. It is pertinent to note down that no records are produced to prove the contents of Ex.A-4 letter. P.W-3 deposed that Smt.A.Satyavathi is the proprietor of the said Road Lines. He did not produce any document to establish that he was authorised to issue Ex.A-4. He did not produce any registers showing that the claimant was working in the said Road Lines, and he was paid Rs.4,500/-as salary and Rs.100/-per day towards batta to the petitioner. In those circumstances, this Court do not find any ground to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that the evidence of P.W-3 and Ex.A-4 cannot be accepted for fixing the income of the claimant. 28. The Tribunal on consideration of nature of employment of the claimant i.e., lorry cleaner and that a lorry cleaner would be paid some batta towards daily allowances, apart from salary, fixed his monthly income notionally at Rs.5,000/-per month, as accident occurred in the year 2010. In those circumstances, this Court do not find any ground to interfere with the notional income as fixed by the Tribunal. 29. In those circumstances, this Court do not find any ground to interfere with the notional income as fixed by the Tribunal. 29. In the light of above findings, the appellant is entitled to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability as per judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and another, 2009 ACJ 1298 is Rs.60,000 x 17 = Rs.10,20,000/-, treating his loss of earnings as 100%. 30. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/-under other heads as follows: 1. Medical expenses 10,000-00 2. Pain and suffering 10,000-00 3. Transport expenses 5,000-00 4. Loss of earnings during the period of medical treatment 20,000-00 5. Extra nourishment 5,000-00 TOTAL Rs. 50,000-00 31. Even as per evidence produced by the claimant, he incurred Rs.10,347/-only towards medical expenses. No evidence was produced by the claimant to show exact amounts incurred by him towards nourishment and transport expenses. In the said circumstances, this Court do not find any ground to enhance the said amount granted by the Tribunal. 32. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-towards loss of earnings during the period of treatment for a period of four months, considering the evidence of doctor and medical evidence produced by the claimant. In those circumstances, there are no grounds to enhance the said amount. 33. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-under the head pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of injuries considering the injury suffered by the claimant. This Court is of the opinion that it can be enhanced to Rs.40,000/-from Rs.10,000/-as his leg was amputated. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.40,000/-is awarded under the head pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of injuries. Therefore, the total amount awarded under other heads is Rs.80,000/-and the compensation entitled by the claimant in all is Rs.10,20,000 + 80,000 = Rs.11,00,000/-. 34. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mona Baghel and others Vs. Sajjan Singh Yadaav and others, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 734, held that in the matter of compensation, the amount actually due and payable is to be awarded despite the claimant having sought for a lesser amount and the claim petition being valued at a lesser value. 34. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mona Baghel and others Vs. Sajjan Singh Yadaav and others, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 734, held that in the matter of compensation, the amount actually due and payable is to be awarded despite the claimant having sought for a lesser amount and the claim petition being valued at a lesser value. The law is well settled that in the matter of compensation, the amount actually due and payable is to be awarded despite the claimant having sought for a lesser amount and the claim petition being valued at a lesser value. Therefore, though the claimant sought for a lesser amount, and the claim petition being valued at lesser value for Rs.8,00,000/-, the amount actually due and payable to be awarded is Rs.11,00,000/-. In that view of the matter, the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified. 35. In view of the above judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court case, the Court shall award just compensation, even if it exceeds the amount claimed by the claimant, subject to payment of court fee. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant is entitled to Rs.11,00,000/-towards just compensation. 36. The Tribunal awarded interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation. This Court 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 judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mannat Johal, 2019 ACJ 1849 (SC). Accordingly, this point is answered. 37. Before parting with the issue this Court is of the opinion that in most of the cases filed by the claimants, the Tribunals while considering the issue of physical disability vis-a-vis functional disability for awarding compensation under the head ‘loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability’ are not following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the following cases: 1. Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another reported in 2011 (1) SCC 343 . 2. G.Ravindranadh @ R.Chowdary Vs. E.Srinivas and another reported in AIR 2013 SC 2974 . 3. Mohan Soni Vs. Ram Avtar Tomar and others reported in 2012 ACJ 583 . 38. Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another reported in 2011 (1) SCC 343 . 2. G.Ravindranadh @ R.Chowdary Vs. E.Srinivas and another reported in AIR 2013 SC 2974 . 3. Mohan Soni Vs. Ram Avtar Tomar and others reported in 2012 ACJ 583 . 38. The Tribunals in some cases are not even referring the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in their judgments. The Tribunals are expected to follow the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court while deciding the functional disability, to award compensation under the head ‘loss of earnings on account of permanent disability’. 39. The Tribunals shall assess the compensation under the head ‘loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability’, basing on the effect and impact of such permanent physical disability, and his earning capacity. The Tribunals shall also assess the functional disability to decide the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. The Tribunals shall not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of functional disability. 40. POINT No.2: To what relief? In the light of finding on point No.1, the appeal is liable to be allowed by modifying the order and decree passed by the Tribunal. 41. In the result, the appeal is allowed, by modifying the order and decree passed by the Tribunal, and it is held that the appellant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.11,00,000/-(Rupees Eleven Lakhs only), with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition, till the date of deposit, instead of Rs.5,30,000/-as awarded by the Tribunal. The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the appellant. There shall be no order as to costs. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount of Rs.11,00,000/-(Rupees Eleven Lakhs only) along with accrued interest thereon, within one month from the date of judgment. In the event of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company 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 judgment. On such deposit, the Appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.11,00,000/-(Rupees Eleven Lakhs only) along with accrued interest thereon. In the event of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company 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 judgment. On such deposit, the Appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.11,00,000/-(Rupees Eleven Lakhs only) along with accrued interest thereon. The appellant/claimant is directed to pay the required court fee before the Tribunal, as per Rule 475(2) of A.P.M.V.Rules 1989, within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of judgment. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.