1

Date of reserved for Judgment :21.11.2025

Date of Pronouncement :27.02.2026

Date of uploading :27.02.2026

APHC010424122013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3520]

FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1551/2013

Between:

1. UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP BY ITS BRANCH

MANAGER, BRANCH NO.2, UPSTAIRS ANDHRA BANK GOWRI

SANKAR THEATRE ROAD, K OTHAPET, GUNTUR GUNTUR DISTRICT.

...APPELLANT

AND

1. VUTLA PRASAD S/O ANJANEYULU DIED AS PER LRS 4 AND 5,

WORKED AS VOLVO BUS DRIVER IN KALESWARI TRAVELS, R/O

D.NO. 3-50 SATYANARAYANAPURAM, 3RD LANE ONGOLE,

PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

2. B CHANDRAIAH, S/O NAR ASIMHA, DRIVER OF LORRY BEARING NO.

AP 07 U 4129 R/O 5 -33, CHERAKONDA VILLAGE, VANGOOR

MAHABOOBNAGAR DISTRICT.

3. PATHIPATI RAMAIAH, S/O LATCHAIAH, OWNER OF THE LORRY

BEARING NO. AP 07 U 4129 R/O D.NO. 24 -2-67, PATAN BAZAR,

GUNTUR GUNTUR DISTRICT.

4. VUTLA SUKANYA W/O LATE PRASAD, AGED 44 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 11

24 2E, RAVULAKOLLUVARI STREET, RAMMURTHYPET, KAVALI,

2

SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

5. VUTLA LAKSHMI PRANATHI D/O LATE PRASAD, R/O. D.NO. 11 24 2E,

RAVULAKOLLUVARI STREET, RAMMURTHYPET, KAVALI, SPSR

NELLORE DISTRICT. RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 ARE BROUGHT ON

RECORD AS LR OF THE DECEASED 1ST RESPONDENT AS PER

COURT ORDER DATE 15.02.2024 IN IA.NO.3/2024.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be

pleased toUnder Section 173 Appeal being aggrieved by the decree and

judgment passed dated 19/3/2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-

cum-III Additional District Judge (FTC) at Ongole.

IA NO: 1 OF 2013(MACMAMP 3888 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 To

stay for all further proceeding in M.V.O.P.No. 473 of 2011 on the file of the Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-III Additional District Judge, Ongole and pass

IA NO: 4 OF 2013(MACMAMP 30286 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: 1 OF 2024

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

Pleased to condone the delay of 510 days in filing the abatement set aside

petition and bring the Legal Representatives of the deceased Respondent No. 1

form the date of death of knowledge ie., 18-01-2023 on the file and pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2024

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

Pleased to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of the petitioner in

above MACMA No. 1551 of 2013 and pass

3

IA NO: 3 OF 2024

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

Pleased to bring the Proposed Respondent herein on record as legal

representatives of the deceased Respondent No. 1 in above MACMA No. 1551

of 2013 as Respondent No. 4 and 5 and pass

Counsel for the Appellant:

1. S MURALI MOHAN

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. MADHAVA RAO NALLURI

The Court made the following:

4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

M.A.C.M.A.No.1551 of 2013

JUDGMENT:

Introductory:

1. Respondent No.3 in M.V.O.P.No.473 of 2011 on the file of the Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge (FTC), Ongole

(for short, “the learned MACT”), filed the present appeal questioning the Award

dated 19.03.2013 passed by the learned MACT, whereunder the petition filed

under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of

Rs.15,00,000/- for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident was partly

allowed, awarding a sum of Rs.11,50,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from

the date of petition till realization, fastening the liability jointly and severally on the

respondents therein.

2. Respondent No.1 herein is the claimant before the learned MACT.

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein are the driver and owner of the lorry bearing

Registration No. AP 07 U 4129 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending

vehicle”).

3. During the pendency of the appeal, the claimant died and Respondent

Nos.4 and 5 were brought on record as his legal representatives.

5

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

“the claimant” and “the respondents” as and how they are arrayed in the

impugned proceedings.

Case of the Claimant:

5. The claimant was working as a Volvo Bus Driver in Kaleswari Travels,

Vijayawada, earning a monthly salary of Rs.15,000/- including batta.

(ii). While so, on 05.11.2011 at about 10:30 p.m., he was driving the bus

bearing Registration No. AP 31 TT 1112 from Lakdikapul, Hyderabad and when it

reached near Ghat Nemalapuri on Hyderabad-Nagarjuna Sagar Road at about

01:00 a.m., the offending vehicle came in the opposite direction, driven by its

driver in a rash and negligent manner in high speed and dashed. As a result, the

claimant sustained grievous injuries, including crush injury to his right leg. The

claimant was immediately shifted to Devarakonda Government Hospital and

subsequently to Aware Global Hospitals, Hyderabad, where he underwent

surgery and spent Rs.1,20,000/- towards treatment, medical, nursing and

accommodation etc.

(iii). A case in Crime No.162 of 2011 under Section 337 and 338 IPC was

registered by Gudipalli Police Station, Nalgonda District against the driver of the

offending vehicle.

6

(iv). The claimant is suffering permanent total disability due to the amputation

of his right leg and was unable to continue his profession as a bus driver.

(v). The accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the

offending vehicle by Respondent No.2, who was employed by Res pondent

No.1/Owner of the lorry. Therefore Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and

severally liable to pay compensation.

Case of the Insurance Company:

6(i). The manner of accident, nature of injuries, age, occupation and income of

the claimant shall be strictly proved.

(ii). The accident occurred due to contributory negligence, as there was a

head-on collision between the lorry / offending vehicle and the Volvo Bus

belonging to Kalaswara Travels.

(iii). The owner of the Volvo Bus is not impleaded and the claimant suppressed

material facts.

(iv). The claimant shall prove permanent disability and loss of earning capacity.

(v). Quantum of compensation claimed is excessive.

7. On the strength of pleadings, the learned MACT framed the following

issues for trial:

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the

lorry bearing No. AP 07 U 4129 by its driver?

7

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim any compensation? If so, for

what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief?

Evidence before the learned MACT:

8. From the claimant side, claimant as P.W.1 and one A. Sanjay, Doctor, as

P.W.2 and One V. Suresh Kumar, Accountant of Kaleswari Travels, as P.W.3

were examined.

(ii). The claimant relied on Ex.A1 to Ex.A16 and Exs.X1 and X2 which include

FIR, medico-legal record, scene observation report, charge sheet, disability

certificate, discharge summary, medical bills and salary certificate.

(iii). On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1-one A. Suseela Devi was examined

and Exs.B1 to Ex.B5 were marked, which include the insurance policy, FIR copy

with report, rough sketch, observation report and charge sheet.

Findings of the learned MACT:

9. The learned MACT, upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence,

held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending

vehicle by its driver.

10. Rejected the plea of contributory negligence and fastened liability upon the

respondents, including the present appellant–Insurance Company.

8

11. With regard to disability, the learned MACT accepted the disability

certificate showing 70% permanent disability and awarded compensation

towards loss of future earning capacity.

12. The learned MACT awarded, in all, a sum of Rs.11,50,000/-.

Arguments in the Appeal:

For the Appellant – Insurance Company:

13(i). The learned MACT failed to consider the evidence of R.W.1 and Exs.B2 to

B5, which establish contributory negligence on the part of the Volvo Bus.

(ii). The owner of the Volvo Bus was not impleaded and therefore the claim

petition itself is defective.

(iii). The disability certificate is not proved in accordance with law, as the

Doctor who issued the certificate is not examined.

(iv). The compensation awarded under various heads are excessive and

without proper evidence.

(v). The rate of interest awarded is on the higher side.

For the Respondents:

14. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant/legal representatives

supported the award passed by the learned MACT, contending that the findings

are based on proper appreciation of evidence and that the compensation

awarded is just and reasonable considering the nature of injuries and permanent

disability. However, it is claimed for awarding just compensation by enhancing

9

the same, as there is no bar to enhance the compensation even if the appeal is

not filed by the victims.

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

1) Whether the liability fixed on the appellant viz. Respondent No.3 before

the learned MACT is proper and whether the quantum of compensation

awarded is just and reasonable or requires any modification if so, to what

extent?

2) what is the result of the appeal?

Point No.1:

Mode of proving the accident, negligence and liability etc.

16. In the context of objections, it is also relevant to note that the appreciation

of evidence in answering the question of fact as to negligence in a motor

accident claim, the learned MACT can rely on the official records adopting the

theory of probability with a holistic approach. This approach stands fortified with

the aid of provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules and also the

observations of the Hon‟ble Apex Court, as follows:

Statutory Guidance:

17(i). It is relevant to note that the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 are

applicable in deciding the cases by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals and they

are made in exercise of powers conferred under Section 176 of the Motor

Vehicles Act which reads as follows:

10

176. Power of State Government to make rules. —A State

Government may make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect

the provisions of sections 165 to 174, and in particular, such rules

may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:—

(a) the form of application for claims for compensation and the

particulars it may contain, and the fees, if any, to be paid in respect

of such applications;

(b) the procedure to be followed by a Claims Tribunal in holding an

inquiry under this Chapter;

(c) the powers vested in a Civil Court which may be exercised by a

Claims Tribunal;

(d) the form and the manner in which and the fees (if any) on

payment of which an appeal may be preferred against an award of a

Claims Tribunal; and

(e) any other matter which is to be, or may be, prescribed.

(ii). Chapter „11‟ of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 commencing from

Rule 455 to Rule 476A deals with the powers of the Tribunal and all other allied

aspects like form of application, registration, notice to parties, appearance and

examination of parties, local inspection, summary examination of parties, method

of recording evidence, adjournments, framing and determination of issues,

judgments and enforcements of awards, Court fee relating to claim petitions

applicability of Civil Procedure Code and the application for claim basis to award

the claim by the claims tribunal. Rule 476 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989

reads as follows:

11

Rule 476: Application for claim :-

(7) Basis to award the claim :- The Claims Tribunal shall proceed

to award the claim on the basis of;-

(i) Registration Certificate of the Motor Vehicle involved in

the accident;

(ii) Insurance Certificate or Policy relating to the insurance

of the Motor Vehicle against the Third party risk;

(iii) Copy of First Information Report;

(iv) Post-mortem certificate or certificate of inquiry from

the Medical Officer; and

(v) The nature of the treatment given by the Medical Officer

who has examined the victim.

(7A) Specification of amount of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal to each victim:- Where compensation is awarded to two

or more persons, the Claims Tribunal shall also specify the

amount payable to each of them.

18. As per Rule 476 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the crime record

can be the basis. The official acts done are presumed to be proper until a

contrary is proved particularly when some statutory recognition is given to such

official records.

19. 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 with reference to facts and

circumstances of each case. It is sufficient if there is probability. The principle of

12

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 claimants shall have to establish is

preponderance of probability only. The legal position to this extent is settled and

consistent.

Precedential Guidance:

20. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road

Transport Corporation

1

, 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..”

Analysis and evidence:

21. P.W.1 is an injured eye witness to the accident. His evidence is clear and

categorical. R.W.1 is an official of the Insurance Company is not an eye witness

to the accident; her evidence is not helpful to draw any interference on the point

of negligence etc. Ex.A1-FIR shows that one B. Chandraiah is arrayed as

accused. Said B. Chandraiah is the driver of the offending vehicle and he is

1

2009 (13) SCC 530

13

arrayed as respondent No.1 all through. He remained ex parte before the

learned MACT. Even the owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte. No

steps are taken to examine them.

22. Ex.B5 is the charge sheet. Charge sheet was laid against respondent

No.1 / B. Chandraiah. The evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A1 and Ex.A5 is

found sufficient to believe the negligence, particularly in the light of the statutory

and precedential guidance mentioned above. To believe that there was

contributory negligence on the part of P.W.1, the proper person to speak is

Respondent No.1. What prevented the appellant from summoning respondent

No.1 is not explained. Except suggesting that the claimant himself caused the

accident, nothing is elicited. Ex.A5 charge sheet was laid on the basis of the

evidence of all other witnesses too. P.W.1 deposed clearly that he was on the

left side of the road and the offending vehicle came in the opposite direction with

high speed and dashed. It is not known what happened to the criminal case laid

against respondent No.1.

23. In the absence of any convincing material to believe contributory

negligence from the side of petitioner / clamant, the necessity of impleadment of

the owner and the Insurance Company of the bus which the claimant was driving

cannot be accepted. Therefore, this objection of the Insurance Company that the

petition is bad for non-joinder and that there was contributory negligence on the

14

part of the claimant is only imaginary. Hence, the objection in that regard is

rejected.

Quantification of compensation:

Precedential Guidance:

24. A reference to parameters, for quantifying the compensation under various

heads, addressed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court is found necessary, to have

standard base in the process of quantifying the compensation, to which the

claimant is entitled.

(i) With regard to awarding just and reasonable quantum of

compensation, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Baby Sakshi Greola vs. Manzoor

Ahmad Simon and Anr.

2

, arising out of SLP(c).No.10996 of 2018 on

11.12.2024, considered the scope and powers of the Tribunal in awarding just

and compensation within the meaning of Act, after marshaling entire case law,

more particularly with reference to the earlier observations of the Hon‟ble

Supreme Court made in Kajal V. Jagadish Chand and Ors.

3

, referred to various

heads under which, compensation can be awarded, in injuries cases vide

paragraph No.52, the heads are as follows:-

S. No. Head Amount (In ₹)

1. Medicines and Medical Treatment xxxxx

2. Loss of Earning Capacity due to Disability xxxxx

3. Pain and Suffering xxxxx

4. Future Treatment xxxxx

5. Attendant Charges xxxxx

2

2025 AIAR (Civil) 1

3

2020 (04) SCC 413

15

6. Loss of Amenities of Life xxxxx

7. Loss of Future Prospect xxxxx

8. Special Education Expenditure xxxxx

9. Conveyance and Special Diet xxxxx

10. Loss of Marriage Prospects xxxxxx

__________

Total Rs. xxxxxx

_________

(ii). Hon‟ble Apex Court in Yadava Kumar Vs. Divisional Manager,

National Insurance Company Limited and Anr.,

4

vide para No.10, by referring

to Sunil Kumar Vs. Ram Singh Gaud

5

,as to application of multiplier method in

case of injuries while calculating loss of future earnings, in para 16 referring to

Hardeo Kaur Vs. Rajasthan State Transport Corporation

6

, as to fixing of

quantum of compensation with liberal approach, valuing the life and limb of

individual in generous scale, in para 17 observed that :-

“The High Court and the Tribunal must realize that there is a distinction between

compensation and damage. The expression compensation may include a claim for

damage but compensation is more comprehensive. Normally damages are given for an

injury which is suffered, whereas compensation stands on a slightly higher footing. It is

given for the atonement of injury caused and the intention behind grant of

compensation is to put back the injured party as far as possible in the same position, as

if the injury has not taken place, by way of grant of pecuniary relief. Thus, in the matter

of computation of compensation, the approach will be slightly more broad based than

what is done in the matter of assessment of damages. At the same time it is true that

there cannot be any rigid or mathematical precision in the matter of determination of

compensation.”

4

2010(10)SCC 341

5

2007 (14) SCC 61

6

1992(2) SCC 567

16

(iii). In Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another

7

, the Hon‟ble Apex

Court summarized principles to be followed in the process of quantifying the

compensation after referring to socio economic and practical aspects from which,

the claimants come and the practical difficulties, the parties may face in the

process of getting disability assessed and getting all certificates from either the

Doctors, who treated, or from the medical boards etc. principles summarized vide

para No.19 are as follows:

19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above:

(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do

not result in loss of earning capacity.

(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole

body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of

earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of

earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent

disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of

evidence, concludes that the percentage of loss of earning capacity is

the same as the percentage of permanent disability).

(iii) The doctor who treated an injured claimant or who examined him

subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give

evidence only in regard to the extent of permanent disability. The loss

of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the

Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety.

(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages

of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the

nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other

factors.

7

2011 (1) SCC 343

17

(iv) In Sidram vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr.

8

vide para No.40, the Hon‟ble Apex Court referred to the general principles

relating to compensation in injury cases and assessment of future loss of earning

due to permanent disability by referring to Rajkumar’s case, and also various

heads under which compensation can be awarded to a victim of a motor vehicle

accident.

(v) In Sidram’s case, reference is made to a case in R.D. Hattangadi

V. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd.

9

. From the observations made therein, it can

be understood that while fixing amount of compensation in cases of accident, it

involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of

sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But, all these elements

have to be viewed with objective standards. In assessing damages, the Court

must exclude all considerations of matter which rest in awarding speculation or

fancy, though conjecture to some extent is inevitable.

Analysis of evidence:

25. It is evident from the record that the claimant was working as a driver by

the date of accident. He suffered amputation, which is mentioned as 70%

disability under Ex.A8. The treatment undergone by the petitioner is indicated by

his evidence and the evidence of doctor who treated him.

8

2023 (3) SCC 439

9

1995 (1) SCC 551

18

(ii). Petitioner claimed that he was shifted to Government Hospital at

Devarakonda for first aid. From there, he was shifted to Aware Global Hospitals,

Hyderabad for better treatment and was an inpatient, incurring Rs.1,20,000/-

towards medical expenses and loss the livelihood. He has relied on Ex.A8

disability certificate, Exs.A9 to A14 are cash bills. Ex.A15 is the inpatient bill to

vindicate his stand as to the treatment undergone and expenditure incurred.

26(i). P.W.2 is Doctor A. Sanjay, Senior Consultant in Global Hospital,

Hyderabad. His evidence is that claimant was admitted to the hospital on

06.11.2011, the date of accident is 05.11.2011. Surgery was conducted as blood

supply could not be restored to the right leg and amputation above the right knee

was opted. Ex.A2 and Ex.A9 to Ex.A15 was issued by their hospital. Ex.A16 is

the discharge summary.

(ii). During cross-examination, P.W.2 has stated that Ex.A9 to A14 were not

accompanied by prescriptions. It was elicited that he is not concerned with the

bills.

27. P.W.3 V. Suresh Kumar stated about the employment of the petitioner as

working as a driver at Sri Kaleswari Travels and payment of salary at Rs.9,000/-.

Ex.A9 is standing for Rs.3,375/-. Exs.A10, A11 and A12 are standing for

Rs.1,200/- each, Ex.A13 is standing for Rs.3,605/-, Ex.A14 is standing for

Rs.665.87/- and Ex.A15 is standing for Rs.80,143/-.

19

28. From the evidence covered by Ex.A9 to Ex.A15 and from the evidence of

P.W.2, the claimant undergoing treatment and incurring medical expenditure can

be safely accepted. With regard to disability, since the petitioner suffered

amputation, functional disability can be accepted at 100%.

29. The income of the claimant can be safely taken at Rs.9,000/- per month

and up to 20% can be added towards future prospects considering his age as 43

years, whereby the income comes to around Rs.11,000/- per month and

Rs.1,32,000/- per annum. For the age of „43‟ years, the multiplier applicable is

„14‟. Upon application of the same, the entitlement of the claimant under the

head of loss of income due to permanent disability comes to Rs.18,48,000/-

(1,32,000/- x 14).

30. In the light of the precedential guidance and in view of the reasons and

evidence referred above, the entitlement of the claimants for reasonable

compensation in comparison to the compensation awarded by the learned MACT

is found as follows:

Sl.

No.

Head Granted by the

learned MACT

Fixed by this

Appellate Court

1. Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/-

2. Transportation Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/-

3. Medical

expenditure/treatment

Rs.90,000/- Rs.90,000/-

4. Extra nourishment Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/-

5. Attendant charges Rs.10,000/-

20

31. For the reasons aforesaid and in view of the discussion made above, the

point framed is answered in favour of the claimants concluding that the claimant

is entitled for compensation of Rs.20,83,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per

annum and the award and decree dated 19.03.2013 passed by the learned

MACT in M.V.O.P.No.473 of 2011 require modification accordingly.

Granting of more compensation than what claimed , if the claimant is

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:

6. Loss of income / earnings

during the period of

hospitalization etc.

Rs.50,000/- Rs.10,000/-

7. Loss of income due to

permanent disability /

Loss of future earning

capacity

Rs.9,00,000/- Rs.18,48,000/-

8. Loss of amenities and

enjoyment of life

Rs.35,000/- Rs.50,000/-

Total: Rs.11,50,000/- Rs.20,83,000/-

21

(1) Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others

10

, 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 Vs. Jagadish Chand and Ors.

11

at para 33 of the judgment, 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

compensation is more than the amount claimed, that must be awarded

especially where the claimant is a minor.”

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

Others

12

at para 5 of the judgment, as follows:-

“5. Though the claimants had claimed a total compensation of Rs 25,00,000

in their claim petition filed before the Tribunal, we feel that the compensation

which the claimants are entitled to is higher than the same as mentioned

supra. There is no restriction that the Court cannot award compensation

exceeding the claimed amount, since the function of the Tribunal or Court

under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to award “just

compensation”. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation.

A “just compensation” is one which is reasonable on the basis of evidence

produced on record. It cannot be said to have become time-barred. Further,

10

(2003) 2 SCC 274

11

2020 (04) SCC 413

12

(2019) 2 SCC 192

22

there is no need for a new cause of action to claim an enhanced amount. The

courts are duty-bound to award just compensation.”

33. Awarding more compensation than what claimed and awardi ng

compensation to the claimant even in the absence of any appeal or cross

objections by the claimant require examination.

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

34(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 others

13

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

13

2023 SCC Online AP 1725

23

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.

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

Insurance Company Limited vs. E. Suseelamma and others (13 supra) case

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

Others vs. Santosh and Others

14

.

(iii). In Surekha and Others vs. Santosh and Others (14 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.

Point No.2:

35. In the result, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company vide

M.A.C.M.A.No.1551 of 2013 is dismissed as follows:

14

(2021) 16 SCC 467

24

(i) Compensation awarded by the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.473 of

2011 at Rs.11,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum is

modified to Rs.20,83,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum

from the date of petition till the date of realization.

(ii) Claimant is liable to pay the Court fee for the enhanced part of the

compensation, before the learned MACT.

(iii) Apportionment:

(a) Respondents No.4 herein / wife of the claimant is entitled to

Rs.12,83,000/- with proportionate interest.

(b) Respondent No.5 herein / daughter of the claimant is entitled to

Rs.8,00,000/- with proportionate interest.

(iv) Respondent No.3 /Insurance Company before the learned MACT is

liable to pay the compensation.

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

(a) If respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein, who are legal representatives of

the claimant, furnish the bank account number within 15 days from

today, respondent No.3 / Insurance Company shall deposit the

amount directly into the bank account(s) of the respondent Nos.4

and 5 and file the necessary proof before the learned MACT.

(b) If the respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein fail to comply v(a) above,

respondent No.3/Insurance Company shall deposit the amount

25

before the learned MACT and the respondent Nos.4 and 5 are

entitled to withdraw the amount at once on deposit.

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

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

stand closed.

____________________________

A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J

Date:27.02.2026

Knr

26

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

M.A.C.M.A.No.1551 of 2013

27.02.2026

Knr