Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Apsrtc, Vizianagaram Dist Another vs Yenni Gowri, Vizianagaram Dist 6 Others on 17 April, 2025
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A.No.1498 of 2017
JUDGMENT:
1. This appeal is directed against the order and decree dated 10.04.2017
passed in M.O.P.No.412 of 2015 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I
Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram (for short “the learned MACT”), where
under a claim made for awarding compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- invoking
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the dependents and legal
representatives of one Yenni Pydiraju (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”)
for his death in a road traffic accident. Claim was allowed by the learned MACT
awarding a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.
2. Claimant No.1 is the wife, claimant Nos.2 to 4 are children and claimant
Nos.5 and 6 are parents of the deceased.
Case of claimants:
3(i). On 14.03.2012 at about 03:30 p.m. the deceased was proceeding through
NH-43 road on a motor cycle bearing No. AP 35 G 7460 and when he reached
near K.L.Puram Road Junction, within the limits of Traffic Police Station
Vizianagaram, one A.P.S.R.T.C bus bearing No.AP 35 Z 0012(hereinafter
referred to as “the offending vehicle”) driven by its driver employed by
A.P.S.R.T.C.(appellant herein) came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
2the motor cycle, where by the accident occurred and the deceased suffered
instantaneous death.
3(ii). A case in crime No.58 of 2012 for the offences under Section 304-A IPC
was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. Negligence of the
driver of the offending vehicle is cause for the accident. A.P.S.R.T.C being the
employer of the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle liable to pay the
compensation.
4. Deceased was hale and healthy, aged 43 years, attending building
contract works and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. The claimants lost all
valuable support of the deceased. Hence they are entitled for compensation of
Rs.10,00,000/-.
5. Respondent No.1 before the learned MACT is the driver of the offending
vehicle remained ex parte.
Case of the appellants:
6. The case of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 before the learned MACT who are
appellants herein in brief is that, the claimants shall prove the pleaded accident,
negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, age, occupation, income of the
deceased and dependency of the claimants.
3
7. The specific plea of the A.P.S.R.T.C. is that when the offending vehicle
reached K.L. Puram Village, one TATA Magic Auto was coming in the opposite
direction to the offending vehicle, while so the deceased proceeding on a
motorcycle from back side of the Auto while trying to overtake the Auto, suddenly
came forward and dashed the front side of the Auto, and fell down on the road
and forcibly pushed in to the side of the offending vehicle, consequently the
accident was occurred. There was negligence, if any, is on the part of the
deceased only.
8. On the strength of pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by
the learned MACT:
1). Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of
driver-R.1 of APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 35 Z 0012, or due to rash and
negligent driving of Motor Cycle bearing No.AP 35 G 7460, or both,
causing death of the deceased Yenni Pydiraju?
2). Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, what
amount and which of the respondents are liable to pay the same?
3. To what relief?
4
9. Evidence before the learned MACT:
Description Remarks
Oral evidence P.W.1: YEnni Gowri Claimant No.1
P.W.2: Penumajji Guru Naidu Eye witness to the
accident.
RW.1: Bodapati Eswara Prasad Driver of the
APSRTC Bus
No.AP-35-Z-0012
Documentary Ex.A1: Attested copy of FIR
evidence Ex.A2: Attested copy of post
mortem certificate
Ex.A3: Attested copy of Charge On behalf of the
sheet petitioner(s).
Ex.A4: Attested copy of Motor
Vehicle Inspector‟s Report
Ex.A5: Attested copy of Driving
license of deceased
Ex.A6: Attested copy of Inquest
Resport
Findings of the learned MACT:
10(i). P.W.2 was a pillion rider on the motorcycle driven by the deceased he has
stated about the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and his
evidence is consistent and reliable. There is nothing to impeach the evidence in
any manner. Evidence of RW-1, the driver of the offending vehicle is not of any
help to disbelieve his negligence and he has admitted that he was convicted by
the Trial Court. Therefore, the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle
stands established.
5
10(ii). The deceased is aged about 43 years and claimed income is at
Rs.15,000/- per month as a Building Contractor but his income can be taken at
Rs.6,000/- per month on guess work. 30% can be added towards future
prospects, whereby the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.93,600/-.
1/4th can be deducted towards personal expenses, then his contribution to family
comes to Rs.70,200/- per annum, whereby compensation under the head of loss
of dependency comes to Rs.9,82,800/- and claimants are entitled for Rs.25,000/-
towards funeral expenses. Claimant No.1 is entitled for Rs.1,00,000/ towards
loss of consortium. All the claimants are entitled for Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of
estate and also claimant No.4 being minor daughter of the deceased is entitled
for Rs.1,00,000 towards loss of love and affection. Therefore, the claimants are
entitled for a compensation of Rs.13,07,800/-. However, as they claimed only
Rs.10,00,000/ is awarded to them.
Arguments in the appeal:
For the appellant-APSRTC:
11. Quantification of compensation done by the learned MACT is irrational.
Learned MACT erred in ignoring the negligence of the deceased and believing
the total negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.
12. Learned MACT ought to have observed that the owner and the Insurance
Company of the motorcycle are also necessary parties. There is no basis to take
6
income at Rs.6,000/- and adding 30% towards future prospects. Compensation
awarded under various heads including rate of interest awarded at 9% per
annum is excessive and the claim petition is fit to be dismissed.
For the Claimants:
13. Learned MACT having found that the claimants are entitled for
Rs.13,07,800/-, ought to have atleast awarded the same and there is no
justification in reducing the amount of compensation. The income of the
deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month claimed by the claimants should have been
accepted and there is no bar for awarding more compensation than what
claimed. The appeal is fit to be dismissed enhancing the compensation.
14. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration given to the arguments
advanced by the both sides.
15. The points that arise for determination in this appeal are:
1) Whether the pleaded accident dated 14.03.2012 has occurred due to
the exclusive negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle?
2) Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation, if so to what
quantum and whether the compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- awarded by the
learned MACT require any interference/modification, if so to what extent?
3) What is the result of the appeal?
7
Point No.1:
Parameters MACT can consider while assessing negligence:
16. In Motor Vehicle Accident claims cases, while disputing the negligence, the
following efforts are necessary from disputing parties :
1) There must be denial.
2) There must be convincing evidence from disputing party.
3) There must be at least oath against oath and tested by cross-examination.
4) Examination of eye witnesses reflected in charge sheet filed by Police is
preferable. However, the same cannot be the thumb rule.
5) Examination of witnesses present at the scene of offence, at relevant
time.
6) The driver of the offending vehicle, if takes witness stand and denies the
negligence, it will have its own importance, in cases of contributory
negligence.
7) In cases of serious dispute as to planting of either witnesses or vehicles,
summoning the investigating officers and eliciting the probabilities or
improbabilities is necessary.
8) The rough sketch of scene of offence and Motor Vehicles Inspector Report
indicating the damage to the vehicles etc. will help to vindicate the stand of
the parties.
9) However, no straight jacket and standard formula is possible and each
matter has to be considered on its own merits and facts and circumstances
with including the relevant and reliable evidence placed before the tribunal.
10) Finally the Tribunal shall have holistic view of the matter.
8
17. It is relevant to note that in view of the summary nature and mode of
enquiry contemplated under Motor Vehicles Act and social welfare, nature of
legislation, the Tribunal shall have holistic view in the facts and circumstances. It
is sufficient if there is probability. The principle of standard of proof, beyond
reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering a claim seeking
compensation for the death or the injury on account of road accident. The touch
stone of the case, the claimant shall have to establish is preponderance of
probability only. The legal position to this extent is settled and consistent.
Reference can be made to the following judgments of the Hon‟ble Apex Court:
1. Dulcina Fernandes and others Vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz and
another1.
2. Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport
Corporation2
4. Mathew Alexander Vs. Mohammed Shafi and another4.
18. P.W.2 is an eyewitness to the accident. Ex.A1 is FIR registered against
the driver of the offending vehicle. Under Ex.A3, charge sheet was filed against
the driver of the offending vehicle.
19. Bodapati Eswara Prasad, the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C was examined as
RW.1. During cross examination, he stated that the Police filed the charge sheet
1
2013 (10) SCC 946
2
2009 (13) SCC 530
3
2011 (10) SCC 509
4
AIR 2023 (SC) 3349
9
against him. The charge sheet or FIR does not disclose that the deceased was
overtaking Auto. He was convicted by the Magistrate Court, of course he has
added that he filed an appeal on it.
20. With the evidence of PW.2 and with the recitals in Ex.A1, Ex.A3 and
available record, the occurrence of the accident and negligence of the driver of
the offending vehicle found fit to be believed as the cause for accident for the
purpose of appreciating the claim made for compensation by the claimants.
21. The findings and conclusion drawn by the learned MACT on the point of
negligence are found convincing. Hence this point No.1 is answered against the
appellants and in favour of the claimants.
Point No.2:
Quantifying the compensation in case of claims arising out of Motor
Vehicles Accidents causing death:-
Precedential Guidance:
22(i). Hon‟ble Apex Court to have uniformity of practice and consistency in
awarding just compensation provided certain guidelines in Sarla Verma (Smt.)
and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.5 vide paragraph Nos.18
and 19, while prescribing a table directing adoption of multiplier mentioned in
5
2009 (6) SCC 121
10column No.4 of the table. As per the observations in the judgment the claimants
have to establish the following:
1. Age of the deceased.
2. Income of the deceased.
3. Number of dependents.
22(ii). Hon‟ble Apex Court directed certain steps while determining the
compensation, they are:
Step No.1:
Ascertain the multiplicand, which shall be the income of the deceased he /
she should have contributed to the dependents and the same can be arrived
after deducting certain part of personal living expenses of the deceased.
Step No.2:
Ascertaining Multiplier. This shall be with reference to the table provided
and table is provided in judgment itself.
Step No.3:
Calculation of the compensation.
Final Step:
After calculation adding of certain amount towards conventional heads
towards loss of estate, loss of consortium, funeral expenditure, cost of transport,
cost of medical expenses for treatment of the deceased before the death etc. are
advised.
11
23(i). Enhancing the scope for awarding just compensation, the Hon‟ble Apex
Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others6 case
guided for adding of future prospect. In respect of permanent employment, 50%
where the deceased is below 40 years, 30% where the deceased is 40-50 years
and 15% where the deceased is 50-60 years.
23(ii). The actual salary shall be after deducting taxes. Further, in respect of self
employed on fixed salary addition is recommended, at 40% for the deceased
below 40 years, at 25% where the deceased is between 40-50 years, at 10%
where the deceased is between 50-60 years. Further, adding of compensation
for loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses at Rs.15,000/- and
Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively is recommended by Hon‟ble Apex court
with an addition of 10% for every three years in Pranay Sethi‘s case.
24. Further enlarging the scope for awarding just and reasonable
compensation in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and
Others7, Hon‟ble Apex Court observed that compensation can be awarded under
the heads of loss of consortium not only to the spouse but also to the children
and parents under the heads of parental and filial consortium.
6
2017(16) SCC 680
7
(2018) 18 SCC 130
12
25. In Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others8, the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court in para Nos.10 and 11 made relevant observations, they are as follows:
10. Whether the Tribunal is competent to award compensation in
excess of what is claimed in the application under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is another issue arising for consideration in
this case. At para 10 of Nagappa case [Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh,
(2003) 2 SCC 274 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 523 : AIR 2003 SC 674] , it was
held as follows: (SCC p. 280)
“10. Thereafter, Section 168 empowers the Claims Tribunal to „make
an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it
to be just‟. Therefore, the only requirement for determining the
compensation is that it must be „just‟. There is no other limitation or
restriction on its power for awarding just compensation.”
The principle was followed in the later decisions in Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Nasir [(2009) 6 SCC 280 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 877 :
(2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 987] and in Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. [(2009) 13 SCC 710 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 241 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri)
1213]
11. Underlying principle discussed in the above decisions is with regard
to the duty of the court to fix a just compensation and it has now
become settled law that the court should not succumb to niceties or
technicalities, in such matters. Attempt of the court should be to equate,
as far as possible, the misery on account of the accident with the
compensation so that the injured/the dependants should not face the
vagaries of life on account of the discontinuance of the income earned
by the victim.
Analysis of Evidence:
26. P.W.1 stated that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by
attending labour contract works. The age of the deceased is „43‟ as per the
Postmortem certificate and Inquest Report. It is the practice to rely on entries in
official records like postmortem and Inquest Report which are prepared in regular
course of official duties, unless there is convincing contradictory evidence.
8
(2013) 9 SCC 54
13
27. Learned MACT has taken the income of deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month
applying guess work and added 30% towards future prospects and taken the
income at Rs.93,600/-, deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses of the
deceased by considering the number of dependents. There is no proof for
income of the deceased except oral evidence of PW.1, who is the wife of the
deceased is the argument of the appellant.
28. However, upon considering the socio economic status etc. of the year
2012, notionally the income of the deceased taken at Rs.5,000/- per month
instead of Rs.6,000/- taken by the learned MACT. Then the annual income
comes to Rs.60,000/-. On adding of 30% towards future prospects, the annual
income of the deceased comes to Rs.60,000/- + Rs.18,000/- = Rs.78,000/-.
Therefore, the income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.78,000/-. On
deduction of 1/4th, the contribution of the income of the deceased to the
claimants comes to Rs.58,500/- and on application of multiplier „14‟, the loss of
dependency to the claimants comes to Rs.8,19,000/-. Claimants are entitled for
Rs.15,000/- each towards the heads of funeral expenditure and loss of estate;
Claimant No.1 being wife and Claimant No.2 to 4 being the children and claimant
Nos.5 and 6 being parents entitled for Rs.40,000/- each under the head of loss of
consortium. In all the entitlement of claimants comes to Rs.10,89,000/-.
14
29. In the light of precedential guidance and in view of the reasons and
evidence referred above, the entitlement of the claimants for reasonable
compensation in comparison to compensation awarded by the learned MACT is
found as follows:
S.No. Head Granted by the Fixed by this
learned MACT Appellate
Court
1. Loss of Rs.9,82,800/- Rs.8,19,000/-
dependency
2. Loss of Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.2,40,000/-
consortium
(Rs.40,000/- @
each claimant:
40,000x6)
3. Funeral Rs.25,000/- Rs.15,000/-
Expenditure and
Transport
Expenditure
4. Loss of estate Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.15,000/-
5. Loss of love and Rs.1,00,000/- -Nil-
affection
Total: Rs.13,07,800 /- Rs.10,89,000/-
30. For the reasons aforesaid it is found that claimants are entitled for
compensation for Rs.10,89,500/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of realization and the award under challenge require
modification accordingly. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.
31. Claim was made for Rs.10,00,000/-, entitlement was arrived by the learned
MACT at Rs.13,07,800/- but the learned MACT awarded Rs.10,00,000/- only
15
considering the claim. Hence lawfulness in awarding more compensation than
what claimed and awarding compensation to the claimants even in the absence
of any appeal or cross objections by the claimants in the appeal require
examination.
Granting of more compensation than what claimed, if the claimants are
otherwise entitled:-
32. The legal position with regard to awarding more compensation than what
claimed has been considered and settled by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court holding
that there is no bar for awarding more compensation than what is claimed. For
the said preposition of law, this Court finds it proper to refer the following
observations of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court made in
(1) Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others9, at para 21 of the
judgment, that –
“..there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation
amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of the Tribunal/Court is
to award “just” compensation, which is reasonable on the basis of evidence
produced on record.”
(2) Kajal V. Jagadish Chand and Ors.10 at para 33, as follows:-
“33. We are aware that the amount awarded by us is more than the amount
claimed. However, it is well settled law that in the motor accident claim
petitions, the Court must award the just compensation and, in case, the just
9
(2003) 2 SCC 274
10
2020 (04) SCC 413
16
compensation is more than the amount claimed, that must be awarded
especially where the claimant is a minor.”
Enhancement of compensation in the absence of appeal:
33(i). Whether the compensation can be enhanced in the absence of an appeal
or cross appeal by the claimant. The legal position as to powers of the Appellate
Court particularly while dealing with an appeal in terms of Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, where the award passed by the learned MACT under
challenge at the instance of the Insurance Company (Respondents) and bar or
prohibition if any to enhance the quantum of compensation and awarding just
and reasonable compensation, even in the absence of any appeal or cross
objections was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in a case between
National Insurance Company Limited vs. E. Suseelamma and others11 in
M.A.C.M.A. No.945 of 2013, while answering point No.3 framed therein vide,
para 50 of the judgment, which reads as follows:
50. In our considered view, the claimant/respondents are entitled
for just compensation and if on the face of the award or even in the
light of the evidence on record, and keeping in view the settled legal
position regarding the claimants being entitled to just compensation
and it also being the statutory duty of the Court/Tribunal to award just
compensation, this Court in the exercise of the appellate powers can
enhance the amount of compensation even in the absence of appeal
or cross-objection by the claimants.
11
2023 SCC Online AP 1725
17
33(ii). Observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in National
Insurance Company Limited vs. E. Suseelamma and others (11 supra) case
are in compliance with the observations of Hon‟ble Apex Court in Surekha and
Others vs. Santosh and Others12.
33(iii). In Surekha and Others vs. Santosh and Others (12 supra) case, in
Civil Appeal No.476 of 2020 vide judgment dated 21.01.2020, three judges of the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court observed that “it is well stated that in the matter of
Insurance claim compensation in reference to the motor accident, the Court
should not take hyper technical approach and ensure that just compensation is
awarded to the affected person or the claimants”. While addressing a case where
the High Court has declined to grant enhancement on the ground that the
claimants fail to file cross appeal above observations are made.
34. In view of the legal position discussed in the cases referred supra i.e.
Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others, Kajal vs. Jagadish Chand and
Others, National Insurance Company Limited vs. E. Suseelamma and others
and Surekha and Others vs. Santosh and Others and in the context of claim
being under the Motor Vehicles Act, Social Welfare legislation. Awarding of more
compensation that what claimed and awarding compensation for the claimants in
the appeal filed by the owner and the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle
found justified in law.
12
(2021) 16 SCC 467
18
Point No.3:
35. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the findings of point Nos.1 and 2,
Point No.3 is answered as follows:
In the result, the appeal is dismissed. However,
(i) The compensation is awarded by the learned MACT at Rs.10,00,000/-
is modified and enhanced to Rs.10,89,500/-.
Apportionment:
(ii) Claimant No.1 is entitled at Rs.3,89,500/- with proportionate interest
and total costs.
(iii) Claimant Nos.2 to 6 are entitled at Rs.1,40,000/- each with
proportionate interest which shall be inclusive of compensation under the
head of loss of consortium.
Disbursement:
(iv) All the claimants except minors are entitled to withdraw their respective
shares of compensation amount on deposit at once.
(v) Minor claimants are entitled to withdraw their respective shares on
attaining majority subject to major declaration and necessary permission
from the learned MACT as per law.
(vi) The appellant shall deposit the balance part of compensation amount,
awarded in terms of the present judgment of this Court under due
19intimation to the Respondent-claimants, after adjusting what is already
deposited or paid, within a period of one month.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall
stand closed.
____________________________
A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J
Date:17.04.2025
Knr
20
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A No.1498 of 2017
17th April, 2025
Knr