THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO MACMA.NO.952 OF 2017 Mr. A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company.

Ms. Apoorva Bantula, learned counsel representing Ms. G. Jyothi Kiran, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

JUDGMENT:(Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya

1. The Appeal arises out of a judgment passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, R.R. District (Tribunal), dated 30.11.2016, by which the petition of the respondent Nos.1 to 4/claimants was allowed by granting compensation of Rs.39,05,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization.

2. The appellant-Insurance Company (the respondent No.2 before the Tribunal) was directed to deposit the compensation amount within one month in the Court. The Tribunal gave liberty to the respondent Nos.1 to 4/claimants to withdraw the compensation in the manner directed by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment.

3. The appellant-Insurance Company has challenged the judgment in the present Appeal.

4. The appellant obtained an interim stay from a Co-ordinate Bench on 28.04.2017, subject to the appellant depositing 75% of the awarded compensation amount before the Tribunal within six weeks from the date of the order. The respondent Nos.1 to 4/claimants were given liberty to withdraw the amount in the same proportion as directed in the impugned judgment, without furnishing any security.

5. The appellant complied with the order dated 28.04.2017 and the Court is informed that the respondent Nos.1 to 4 have withdrawn the amount deposited.

6. The parties are represented before us.

7. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the appellant seeks to confine the Appeal only to the issue of the percentage of interest. Counsel submits that instead of the rate of interest at 9% per annum as granted by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment, the rate of interest should be reduced to 7.5% per annum. The stand of the appellant was recorded in the Proceeding Sheets dated 26.06.2025 and 08.07.2025, respectively.

8. Counsel have made their submissions on the reduction of the rate of interest.

9. We have considered the submissions as well as the material on record, including two Calculation Memos filed on behalf of the appellant, reflecting the outstanding amount which the appellant is to pay with interest at 9% and 7.5% per annum. The appellant is due to pay the balance 25% of the awarded amount to the respondent Nos.1 to 4 along with the adjudicated rate of interest.

10. The Supreme Court in Ranjana Prakash and others v. Divisional Manager and another¹, relied on by the appellant, held that it is not necessary for the claimants to independently challenge the Award for defending the compensation awarded on other grounds, and further, that the claimants will not be entitled to seek enhancement of the compensation by urging any new ground in the absence of any cross- appeal/cross-objections. The Supreme Court relied on Order XLI Rule 33 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which enables the Appellate Court to pass any order which ought to have been passed by the Trial Court and to make further or other orders as required in the case, even in the absence of any Appeal or cross-objections filed by the respondents.

11. Ranjana Prakash (supra) was relied on in an order passed by the Supreme Court dated 07.01.2021 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.14319 of 2020.

12. The respondents, on the other hand, relied on Surekha W/o Rajendra Nakhate and others v. Santosh S/o Namdeo Jadhav and others² which cautioned Courts from taking a hyper-technical approach, and on Supe Dei (Smt) and others v. National Insurance Company Limited and another³, which relied on paragraph 11 in the case of Kaushnuma Begum (Smt.) and Ors. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd, and Ors.⁴, to hold that 9%

per annum from the date of claim should be the accepted