1

Date of reserved for Judgment :02.04.2026

Date of Pronouncement :19.06.2026

Date of uploading :19.06.2026

APHC010516372013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3520]

FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 200/2013

Between:

1. THE AP STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR, AP

STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION O/O.MUSHEERABAD,

HYDERABAD.

2. REGIONAL MANAGER, AP STATE ROAD TRANSPORT

CORPORATION O/O.ONGOLE, PRAKASAM.

...APPELLANT(S)

AND

1. KONKALA VENKATAMMA 4 ORS, W/O.PEDA KONDA REDDY

R/O.PURIMETLA [V], MUNDLAMUR [M], PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

2. KONKALA SIVA REDDY, S/O.PEDA KONDA REDDY R/O.PURIMETLA

[V], MUNDLAMUR [M], PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

3. KONKALA PUJITHA, D/O.PEDA KONDA REDDY R/O.PURIMETLA [V],

MUNDLAMUR [M], PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

4. KONKALA RADHA, D/O.PEDA KONDA REDDY R/O.PURIMETLA [V],

MUNDLAMUR [M], PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

5. KONKALA VENKATESHWARA REDDY, S/O.KOTI RED DY

2

R/O.PURIMETLA [V], MUNDLAMUR [M], PRAKASAM DISTRICT. [R2

TO 4 ARE BEING MINORS REP BY THEIR 1ST RESPONDENT AS

NEXT FRIEND]

...RESPONDENT(S):

Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Courtset aside the

order and decree passed in MVOP No.215/2010 dated 26.07.2012 on the file of

the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum I Addl.District Judge, Ongole

IA NO: 3 OF 2013(MACMAMP 758 OF 2013

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased

stay the order and decree passed in MVOP No.215/2010 dated 26.07.2012 on

the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum I Addl.District Judge,

Ongole, penidng disposal of the court

IA NO: 4 OF 2013(MACMAMP 4079 OF 2013

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased

IA NO: 5 OF 2013(MACMAMP 35316 OF 2013

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC)

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. NUTHALAPATI KRISHNA MURTHY

The Court made the following:

3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

M.A.C.M.A.No.200 of 2013

JUDGMENT:

Introductory:

1. The appellants/respondents 1 and 2 i.e., Andhra Pradesh State Road

Transport Corporation (A.P.S.R.T.C) in M.V.O.P.No.215 of 2010, feeling

aggrieved by the Award and Decree dated 26.07.2012 passed by the

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge,

Ongole (for short “the learned MACT”), preferred the present appeal disputing

the findings regarding their liability and quantum of compensation awarded by

the learned MACT.

2. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein are the claimants before the learned

MACT. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are minors represented by their mother,

respondent No.1.

3. The claim petition was filed under the Motor Vehicles Act seeking

compensation for the death of one Konkala Peda Konda Reddy (hereinafter

referred to as “the deceased”) in a motor vehicle accident due to involvement of

A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 3421 (hereinafter referred to as “the

offending vehicle”).

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as

the petitioners/claimants and the respondents, as and how they are arrayed in

the proceedings before the learned MACT.

4

Case of the claimants:

5(i). On 23.04.2010 morning, the deceased along with two others started from

Purimetla Village to go to Addanki on a motor cycle. When they reached near

Modepalli Major Canal between Purimetla and Umamaheswara Agraharam

villages, the offending vehicle came in the opposite direction in a rash and

negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the motor cycle and

dragged it to some distance. As a result, the deceased and two others fell on

the road, sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot.

(ii). A case was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and

after investigation, charge sheet was filed covered by C.C.No.125 of 2010 on

the file of Judicial Magistrate of 1

st

Class, Darsi.

(iii). The deceased was doing cultivation and earning Rs.40,000/- to

Rs.50,000/- per annum. He was the sole bread winner of the family. Due to

his sudden death, the claimants are suffering a lot. Therefore, the claimants

sought compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

Case of the respondents/APSRTC:

6(i). There was no negligence on the part of the driver of the RTC bus.

(ii). Three persons were travelling on the motor cycle and the rider was

driving the vehicle in a zig-zag manner with high speed and lost control over

the vehicle and dashed against the bus (offending vehicle).

5

(iii). The accident occurred due to head-on collision between both the

vehicles and therefore the owner, insurer and rider of the motor cycle are

necessary parties to the case.

(iv). The rider of the motor cycle had no valid driving licence and the vehicle

was not duly registered.

(v). The compensation claimed was excessive.

Findings of the learned MACT:

7(i). Upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, particularly the

evidence of P.W.2-an eyewitness coupled with Ex.A4-charge sheet filed

against the driver of the offending vehicle, the learned MACT held that the

accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

APSRTC bus / offending vehicle.

(ii). The learned MACT rejected the contention of the respondents regarding

contributory negligence on the ground that mere triple riding on the motor cycle

by itself is not sufficient to attribute contributory negligence in the absence of

cogent evidence.

(iii). With regard to quantum of compensation, the learned MACT accepted

the income of the deceased at Rs.120/- per day and Rs.3,600/- per month.

After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses and applying multiplier “16”,

awarded Rs.4,60,800/- towards loss of dependency. Further an amount of

Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and

Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium were awarded. In all, a total

6

compensation of Rs.4,80,800/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of

petition till realization was awarded.

Arguments in the Appeal:

For the appellants/APSRTC:

8(i). The learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that the rider of the motor cycle

was negligent and lost control over the vehicle and dashed against the

offending vehicle.

(ii). The Tribunal failed to appreciate that three persons were travelling on the

motor cycle in violation of Motor Vehicles Act provisions and contributory

negligence ought to have been fixed.

(iii). The learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that it is a case of head-on

collision and the owner, insurer and rider of the motor cycle are necessary

parties to the proceedings.

(iv). The learned Tribunal erred in relying upon the evidence of P.W.2 and

ignoring the evidence of R.W.1.

(v). The compensation awarded is excessive.

(vi). Interest awarded at 9% per annum is excessive and liable to be reduced.

For the respondents/claimants:

9(i). The award passed by the learned MACT is based on proper appreciation

of evidence.

(ii). The evidence of P.W.2 coupled with FIR and charge sheet clearly

establishes negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.

7

(iii). Mere triple riding by itself not sufficient to accept contributory negligence.

(iv). The compensation awarded by the learned MACT is just and reasonable

and requires no interference.

10. Heard both sides extensively. Perused the record. Thoughtful

consideration is given to the arguments advanced by both sides.

Points:

11. The points that arise for determination in this appeal are:

(1). Whether the liability fixed and compensation of Rs.4,80,800/-

awarded by the learned MACT under the award and decree dated

26.07.2012 in M.V.O.P.No.215 of 2010 are sustainable in law and on

facts or whether require any interference and if so, on what grounds and

to which extent?

(2). What is the result of the appeal?

Point No.1:

Accident and Negligence:

12(i). As per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Motor vehicle Rules

and as per the ratio laid down by this Court, the record maintained by the police

can be the basis to consider the claim made in terms of the Motor vehicles Act.

In a case between New India Assurance Company Ltd., Vs. Kethavarapu

Sathyavathi and Ors.

1

, the Hon‟ble Division Bench of High Court of Andhra

Pradesh has referred to Section 168, 169 of M.V. Act and Rule 476(7) of A.P.

1

2009 Supreme (AP) 136=2010(2) ALD 403=2009(3) ALT 260

8

Motor Vehicles Rules and also catena of decisions. The point for consideration

before the Hon‟ble Division Bench was that in holding an inquiry in terms of

Motor Vehicles Act, what is the procedure to be followed and whether the F.I.R.

can be basis for considering the claim. Relevant observations are in para

Nos.5 to 7.

(ii). In a case between Bhagwan Ram and Ors. Vs. Deen Dayal and

Ors.

2

, while considering the nature of proof is required for believing the

negligent driving in Motor Accident Claims, the Hon‟ble High Court of Rajasthan

found that Certificate and the copies of documents prepared by the Police on

the spot, including the Challan, First Information Report etc. are admissible,

even in the absence of statement of eye witnesses and the same can be the

basis to believe the negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, vide

para-11.

(iii). In Anitha Sarma and Others Vs. New Indian Assurance Company

Ltd.

3

, the Honble Apex Court observed that in Motor Accident Claims, standard

of proof required is the preponderance of possibilities but not beyond

reasonable doubt; approach and role of the Courts, while examining the

evidence in accident cases, ought not to be to find fault with non-examination of

the best eye witnesses, as may happen in criminal Trial, but instead should be

only to analyse the material placed on record by the parties to ascertain

2

2013 (0) sc (Raj) 812

3

2021(1) SCC 171

9

whether the claimant‟s version is more likely than not true. The relevant

observations are in para-17.

(iv). The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road

Transport Corporation

4

, in para 15 observed as follows:

“15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic

view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of

an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be

possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to

establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The

standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied.

For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration

the respective stories set forth by both the parties..”

13. In the present case, it is relevant to note that the claim is laid in terms of

Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, for which the involvement of the

vehicle alone is enough. Negligence etc. need not to be proved. However, the

appellant in their wisdom has expanded the scope of the enquiry / trial under

the Motor Vehicles Act, which is a social welfare legislation to the extent of

examining the negligence by way of counter and cross-examination of the

witnesses.

14(i). P.W.2 is an eye witness to the accident. He has deposed the clear terms

that he has an eye witness to the accident and that as the driver of the

offending vehicle/A.P.S.R.T.C. bus is negligent.

4

2009 (13) SCC 530

10

(ii). During cross examination, nothing important could be elicited to discredit

his testimony except suggesting that he did not witness the accident. It is

relevant to note that P.W.2 stated very firmly that he was cited as a witness in

the charge sheet.

15. R.W.1, the driver of the offending vehicle, denied the negligence and

stated that the motorcyclist came in a triple riding and hit the vehicle. But, he

has admitted that he was charge sheeted by the police and that he was

attending the Court at Darsi in a case registered in terms of Section 304-A IPC.

16. Upon examining the scope of Section 163-A and the provisions of the

Motor Vehicles Act and Rules made thereunder, in the light of the evidence of

P.W.2, the conclusions drawn by the learned MACT on the point of negligence

etc. found fit to be accepted and grounds to interference are not found.

17. Mere triple riding by itself cannot be a ground to believe that there was

negligence on the part of the motorcyclist. It is not known what is the judgment

in the criminal case tried against the driver of the offending vehicle was.

Therefore, either with regard to the negligence of the motorcyclist or

contribution of any negligence, scope for interference is not found.

18. It is also relevant to note that the deceased Konkala Peda Konda Reddy

was not the rider of the motorcycle and one Koti Reddy was the rider of the

motor cycle.

11

Quantum and liability:

19. The death of the deceased is due to accident is shown by the oral

evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the documentary evidence covered by Ex.A2-

Inquest Report and Ex.A3-Post Mortem certificate. As per inquest Report and

Post Mortem certificate, the deceased was aged about „35‟ years as on the

date of accident. Cultivation and agriculture is shown as the source of income.

No specific proof is placed. Therefore, notional income can be taken into

consideration.

20. As per P.W.1, the income of the deceased was around Rs.40,000/- to

Rs.50,000/- per annum. However, for want of proof etc., the learned MACT

has adopted the income of the deceased at Rs.120/- per day. The same is

found as reasonable. However, in view of age of the deceased being „35‟ years

and in view of the his occupation being in the unorganized sector, addition of at

least 20% is possible, whereby the income of the deceased can be accepted

around at Rs.150/- per day, which comes to Rs.4,500/- per month. 1/3

rd

of the

income can be deducted towards personal expenditure, whereby the

contribution of the deceased to the family comes to Rs.3,000/- per month and

Rs.36,000/- per annum, which can be considered as the multiplicand. Upon

application of multiplier „16‟ applicable to the age of the deceased, the

entitlement of claimants towards compensation under the head of loss of

dependency comes to Rs.5,76,000/-(Rs.36,000/- x 16).

12

21. Further, the claimants are entitled for compensation under the

conventional heads i.e. Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium,

Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenditure and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of

estate.

22. As per the table provided in terms of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles

Act viz. Schedule-II, the maximum income that can be taken is Rs.40,000/-.

The compensation that can be awarded under the head of loss of dependency

is Rs.5,76,000/-, which does not include compensation that can be awarded

under the conventional heads.

23. It is relevant to note that the compensation fixed under the conventional

heads under the Motor Vehicles Act is found as very low by the Hon‟ble

Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation and Anr.

5

It is also observed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court that the

same require enhancement and that the scales are fixed decades back.

Therefore, the claimants are entitled for compensation under the heads of loss

of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenditure in tune with the

precedential guidance of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court as the guidance of the

Supreme Court is the law of the land by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution

of India.

5

2009 (6) SCC 121

13

24. In view of the reasons and evidence referred above, the entitlement of

the claimant for reasonable compensation in comparison to the compensation

awarded by the learned MACT is found as follows:

Head Compensation

awarded by

the learned MACT

Fixed by this

Court

(i) Loss of dependency Rs.4,60,800/- Rs.5,76,000/-

(ii) Loss of estate Rs.5,000/- Rs.15,000/-

(iii) Loss of Consortium Rs.10,000/-

@ Claimant No.1/

wife of the deceased

Rs.2,00,000/-

@ Rs.40,000/- to

each claimant

(iv) Funeral expenses Rs.5,000/- Rs.15,000/-

Total compensation awarded Rs.4,80,800/- Rs.8,06,000/-

Interest (per annum) 9%

Precedential guidance:

25(i). For having uniformity of practice and consistency in awarding just

compensation, the Hon‟ble Apex Court provided guidelines as to adoption of

multiplier depending on the age of the deceased in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and

Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (1 supra) and also the

method of calculation as to ascertaining multiplicand, applying multiplier and

calculating the compensation vide paragraph Nos.18 and 19 of the Judgment.

(ii). Further the Hon‟ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v.

Pranay Sethi and Others

6

case directed for adding future prospects at 50% in

respect of permanent employment where the deceased is below 40 years, 30%

6

2017(16) SCC 680

14

where deceased is between 40-50 years and 15% where the deceased is

between 50-60 years. Further, in respect of self employed etc., recommended

addition of income at 40% for the deceased below 40 years, at 25% where the

deceased is between 40-50 years and at 10% where the deceased is between

50-60 years. Further, awarding compensation under conventional heads like

loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenditure at Rs.15,000/-,

Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively is also provided in the same

Judgment.

(iii). Further in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and

Others

7

, the Hon‟ble Apex Court observed that the compensation under the

head of loss of consortium can be awarded not only to the spouse but also to

the children and parents of the deceased under the heads of parental

consortium and filial consortium.

Just Compensation:

26. In Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others

8

, the Hon‟ble

Supreme Court in para Nos.10 and 11 made relevant observations.

Granting of more compensation than what claimed, if the claimants are

otherwise entitled:-

27. The legal position with regard to awarding more compensation than what

claimed has been considered and settled by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court

7

(2018) 18 SCC 130

8

(2013) 9 SCC 54

15

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 Others

9

, at para 21 of the

judgment.

(2) Kajal Vs. Jagadish Chand and Ors.

10

at para 33 of the judgment.

(3) Ramla and Others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and

Others

11

at para 5 of the judgment.

Enhancement of compensation in the absence of appeal by the claimants:

28(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 Co mpany

(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

9

(2003) 2 SCC 274

10

2020 (04) SCC 413

11

(2019) 2 SCC 192

16

vs. E. Suseelamma and others

12

in M.A.C.M.A. No.945 of 2013, while

answering point No.3 framed therein vide, para 50 of the judgment.

(ii). Observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in National

Insurance Company Limited vs. E. Suseelamma and others (12 supra)

case are in compliance with the observations of Hon‟ble Apex Court in

Surekha and Others vs. Santosh and Others

13

.

(iii). In Surekha and Others vs. Santosh and Others (13 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.

29. In view of the discussion made above and in the light of the statutory and

precedential guidance in the facts and circumstances of the case, the point

framed is answered concluding that the entitlement of claimants and the liability

fixed on the respondents under the award under questioned / challenged

require no interference. However, the claimants are entitled for compensation

for Rs.8,06,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of

12

2023 SCC Online AP 1725

13

(2021) 16 SCC 467

17

petition till the date of realization and accordingly, the Award and Decree dated

26.07.2012 passed by the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.215 of 2010 require

modification. Point framed is answered accordingly. Considering the length of

time and the enhancement of compensation, interest is awarded at the rate of

6% per annum.

Point No.2:

30. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. However,

(i) Compensation awarded by the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.215 of

2010 at Rs.4,80,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum is

modified and enhanced to Rs.8,06,000/- with interest at the rate of

6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

(ii) Claimants are liable to pay the Court fee for the enhanced part of the

compensation, before the learned MACT.

(iii) Apportionment:

(a) Claimant No.1 / wife of the deceased is entitled for Rs.2,56,000/-

with proportionate interest and costs.

(b) Claimant Nos.2 to 4 / children of the deceased are entitled for

Rs.1,50,000/- each with proportionate interest.

(c) Claimant No.5 / father of the deceased is entitled for

Rs.1,00,000/- with proportionate interest.

(iv) Respondents before the learned MACT / A.P.S.R.T.C (appellants

herein) are liable to pay the compensation.

18

(v) Time for payment /deposit of balance amount is two months.

(a) If the claimants furnish the bank account number within 15 days

from today, the respondents / A.P.S.R.T.C. shall deposit the

amount directly into the bank account of the claimants and file the

necessary proof before the learned MACT.

(b) If the claimants fail to comply v(a) above, the respondents /

A.P.S.R.T.C. shall deposit the amount before the learned MACT

and the claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount at once on

deposit.

(vi) Claimant Nos.2 and 4 / children of the deceased are entitled to

withdraw the amount on attaining majority subject to the necessary

recognition as majors and permission by the learned MACT as per

the law.

(vii) There shall be no order as to costs, in the appeal.

31. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall

stand closed.

____________________________

A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J

Date:19.06.2026

Knr

19

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

M.A.C.M.A No.200 of 2013

19th June, 2026

Knr