Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
The Ap State Road Transport Corporation vs Kuruva Subba Arayudu Died As Per Lrs 4 To 7 on 6 August, 2026
1
Date of reserved for orders :08.05.2026
Date of pronouncement :06.08.2026
Date of uploading :06.08.2026
APHC010513862014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3520]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE 6th DAY OF AUGUST 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2814/2014
Between:
1. THE AP STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP BY ITS
MANGING DIRECTOR CUM VICE CHAIRMAN O/O.MUSHEERABAD,
HYDERABAD.
...APPELLANT
AND
1. KURUVA SUBBA ARAYUDU DIED AS PER LRS 4 TO 7, S/O.K.ANKANNA,
HINDU, OFF LORRY DRIVER R/O.H.NO.2/1444-D, PEDDA PADAKANA, I-
TOWN, KURNOOL.
2. N KESHAVA GOUD, S/O.N.JAYANTHI GOUD, AGED MAJOR, OCC: OWNER
OF LORRY R/O.H.NO.44-19-A/10, PRAKASH NAGAR, KURNOOL.
3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, M/S.NEW INDIA ASSUANCE CO LTD
O/O.HDCT COMPLEX, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, KURNOOL.
4. KURUVA SUDHAKAR S/O LATE KURUVA SUBBARAYUDU, HINDU,AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS,R/O. 2/144D-A1,PEDDAPADAKHANA
STREET,KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRAPRADESH 518001
5. KURUVA SURIBABU S/O LATE KURUVA SUBBARAYUDU, HINDU,AGED
ABOUT 38 YEARS,R/O. 2/144D-A1,PEDDAPADAKHANA
STREET,KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRAPRADESH 518001
2
6. WADALA SULOCHANA D/O LATE KURUVA SUBBARAYUDU, HINDU,AGED
ABOUT 35 YEARS,R/O. 3 -157,PAIGERI,
BALAPALAPALLE,BETHANUCHERLA,KURNOOL DISTRICT,
ANDHRAPRADESH - 518599
7. KURUVA SHAKUNTALA W/O LATE KURUVA SUBBARAYUDU,
HINDU,AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,R/O. 2/144-D-A1,PEDDAPADAKHANA
STREET,KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 518001
RESPONDENT NO.4 TO 7 ARE BROUGHT ON RECORD AS LR OF THE
DECEASED 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE COURT ORDER DATE.23.04.2025 IN
IA.NO.3/2024
...RESPONDENT(S):
Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Court allow the appeal by
setting aside the decree and judgment dated 19.03.2012 made in MVOP
No.621/2008 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum IV
Addl. District Judge, Kurnool
IA NO: 1 OF 2012(MACMAMP 5907 OF 2012
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 condone the
delay of 65 days that has occurred in filing the present appeal in the interest of justice
IA NO: 2 OF 2012(MACMAMP 6114 OF 2012
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 all further
proceedings including the execution of the decree and judgment dated 19.03.2012
made in MVOP No.621/2008 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal cum IV Addl. District Judge, Kurnool
IA NO: 3 OF 2012(MACMAMP 7121 OF 2012
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 vacate the
interim stay passed in MACMAMP No. 6114 of 2012 in MACMASR No. 39946 of
2012 dated 26-9-2012 and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2016(XOBJ 15867 OF 2016
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
3
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 may be
pleased to condone the delay of 790 days in filing the Legal Representative
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 may be
pleased to set aside the abatement in filing Legal Representative petition, in the
interest of justice and equity.
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 may be
pleased to bring on record the petitioners/proposed respondents/L.Rs. of deceased
Respondent No.1 herein prays that the Honourable Court may be pleased to implead
them as respondents 4 to 7 in the MACMA, being the legal heirs/sons, daughter and
wife of the deceased respondent No.1, in the interest of justice and equity
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC)
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. A JAYA SANKARA REDDY
2. I MAAMU VANI
3. THOTA ASHOK KUMAR
4. A JAYANTHI
The Court made the following:
4
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
I.A.No.1 of 2016
In / and
M.A.C.M.A.No.2814 of 2014
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Introductory:
1. Respondent No.1 / A.P.S.R.T.C in M.V.O.P.No.621 of 2008 on the file of the
Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool
(for short “the learned MACT”) filed the present appeal.
2. Respondent No.1 in this appeal is petitioner before the learned MACT,
respondent Nos.2 and 3 are respondent Nos.2 and 3 before the learned MACT and
respondent Nos.4 to 7 are the legal representatives of the original claimant-Kuruva
Subbarayudu.
3. The claimant(s) filed Cross-Objection petition vide I.A.No.1 of 2016 (X OBJ
15867 of 2016). However, the office endorsement indicates that the records
pertaining to the said Cross-Objection petition were not received from the erstwhile
common High Court at Hyderabad following bifurcation. Pursuant to the directions of
this Court dated 27.02.2026, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 7 filed a
copy of the Cross-Objection with petition for the purpose of reconstruction of the
Court record. Considering the representation of both sides, I.A.No.1 of 2016 filed on
behalf of the claimants is allowed.
4. One Kuruva Subbarayudu-injured (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner”)
filed the claim petition in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming
5compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident.
He was travelling in lorry bearing No.AP 21 V 9993 owned by respondent No.2 and
insured with respondent No.3. While he was travelling in the said lorry on 03.06.2008,
A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 1757 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending
vehicle”) dashed the lorry in a rash and negligent manner, causing the accident,
resulting in injuries and disability to the petitioner. The offending vehicle is owned by
respondent No.1 before the learned MACT (appellant herein).
5. Respondent No.4 to 7 herein are impleaded pursuant to the death of the
original claimant during the pendency of the appeal by the A.P.S.R.T.C. They have
filed cross-objections.
Contention of the appellant / A.P.S.R.T.C:
6. The contention of the appellant / A.P.S.R.T.C is that there was negligence on
the part of the driver of the lorry. The claimants should have moved an application
under the Workmen‟s Compensation Act against the driver and Insurance Company
of the lorry. There was no negligence on the part of the driver of A.P.S.R.T.C. bus.
In any event, the claim should lie against the lorry and there is liability on the owner,
driver and Insurance Company of the lorry. The legal representatives of the claimant
by way of cross-objections, claimed that the learned MACT awarded a meagre
compensation and ought to have considered the permanent functional disability of the
claimant at 100% and that the compensation awarded is very low and requires
enhancement.
6
7. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as “the
petitioners/claimants” and “the respondents” as and how they are arrayed before the
learned MACT.
Case of the claimants:
8(i). On 03.06.2008 at about 05:00 p.m. the petitioner boarded the lorry carrying
coal bearing No.AP 21 V 9993 at Chandrapoor to proceed to Mysore in Karnataka.
On 04.06.2008 at about 7:00 p.m., at Bharath Gas Factory near Dupadu, Kurnool
Town, the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus / the offending vehicle came at a high speed in a rash
and negligent manner and dashed the lorry. As a result of which, the petitioner /
driver of the lorry sustained multiple injuries. He was shifted to Government General
Hospital, Kurnool, where he has taken treatment and incurred medical expenditure of
Rs.50,000/-. On his report, Crime No.57 of 2008 was registered. The negligence of
the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C Bus / offending vehicle is the cause for accident.
(ii). The petitioner was hale and healthy, aged about „39‟ years, earning Rs.3,000/-
per month as salary and Rs.3,000/- towards „batta‟ by the date of accident. But, due
to the accident, his right leg was amputated and he could not attend to his duties as a
regular driver. The claim is made against the A.P.S.R.T.C as well as the lorry for joint
and several liability.
Case of respondent No.1 / A.P.S.R.T.C.:
9. The negligence on part of the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C bus is not correct. The
petitioner himself is responsible for the accident, being the driver of the lorry and
driving the same in a rash and negligent manner.
10. Respondent No.2, the owner of the lorry remained ex parte.
7
Case of respondent No.3 / Insurance Company:
11(i). Respondent No.3 / Insurance Company of the lorry claimed that there was no
negligence on the part of the petitioner, the driver of the lorry. The driver of the
A.P.S.R.T.C bus alone was negligent. Hence, respondent No.1 before the learned
MACT alone is liable to pay compensation.
(ii). The petitioner shall prove the pleaded accident, age, occupation, income and
other material particulars, including his valid and effective driving licence.
(iii). Further, it is also claimed by the Insurance Company that the driver of the
A.P.S.R.T.C bus was charge-sheeted and prosecuted under Exs.A1 and A2.
Therefore, respondent No.3 / Insurance Company is not liable.
Findings of the learned MACT:
12. The incident was witnessed by the cleaner who was preset in the lorry. He
sustained multiple injures. FIR and charge-sheet vide Exs.A1 and A2, reveal the
circumstances under which the accident occurred. The evidence of R.W.1, the driver
of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus would show that he was prosecuted by the Ulindakonda
Police by filing a charge-sheet on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate,
Kurnool. The FIR under the original of Ex.P1 and charge-sheet under the original of
Ex.P2 were filed against him and that he did not give any report.
13. The negligence on the part of the R.W.1, the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C bus, is
acceptable. Therefore, the A.P.S.R.T.C is liable to pay compensation.
14. The petitioner suffered the following four injuries:
1. A lacerated injury present over the fore head size 5 x 2 cm red in colour.
2. Knee size 2 x 4 red in colour.
8
3. A lacerated injury present in Right leg below the Knee 4 x 2 cm red in
colour.
4. A lacerated injury present over the left thumb and his right leg was
amputated.
15. P.W.2, the Orthopedic Surgeon who treated P.W.1 and conducted the
operation, deposed about the treatment, operation and amputation over right below
knee. He further stated that the petitioner was admitted into the hospital on
10.06.2008 and discharged on 28.07.2008.
16. The income of the petitioner/claimant can be considered at Rs.3,000/- per
month and batta at Rs.2,000/- per month, totaling Rs.5,000/- per month, which comes
to Rs.60,000/- per annum. 1/3rd was deducted towards the personal expenditure.
Thereafter, Rs.40,000/- was capitalized. Multiplier „16‟ is applicable. When the same
is applied, entitlement comes to Rs.6,40,000/-. The permanent disability is taken at
50%. Therefore, the entitlement comes to Rs.3,20,000/- under the head of functional
disability. The petitioner is further entitled for Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering
and Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities of life, Rs.30,000/- towards medicinal
expenditure and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of earnings and incapacity to earn. In all
the total entitlement comes to Rs.4,30,000/-.
Arguments in the appeal:
For the appellant / A.P.S.R.T.C:
17(i). Negligence on the part of the petitioner, the driver of the lorry should have
been considered.
(ii). The evidence of R.W.1 is ignored.
9
(iii). The disability is taken excessively.
(iv). The compensation awarded is excessive.
For the respondents/ legal representatives / claimants:
18(i). Deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenditure in the injury case is not correct.
(ii). Taking the disability at 50% is not correct.
(iii). Compensation under all heads is not awarded.
19. Heard both sides extensively. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration is
given to the arguments advanced by both sides.
20. Now, the points that arise for determination in this appeal are:
1) Whether the compensation awarded at Rs.4,30,000/- by the learned MACT
and the imposition of liability on the appellant A.P.S.R.T.C. (respondent No.1
before the learned MACT) are proper or require any interference, and if so, on
what ground and to which extent?
2) What is the result of the appeal?
Point No.1:
Accident and Negligence:
Statutory Guidance:
21(i). As per Section 176 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the State Governments are
entitled to make rules for the purpose of carrying effect to the provisions of the Motor
Vehicles Act.
(ii). In relation to claims before the learned MACT, Rule 455 to Rule 476 of the A.P.
Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, vide Chapter No.11 provides comprehensive guidance.
As per Rule 476 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the claims Tribunal shall
10
proceed to award the claim basing on the registration certificate of the vehicle,
insurance policy, copy of FIR and Post- mortem certificate etc.
Precedential Guidance:
22. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road
Transport Corporation1, 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..”
23(i). P.W.1 is the claimant and injured. He has denied the negligence on his part
and asserted that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the
driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus.
(ii). During his cross examination, nothing is elicited and he has specifically stated
that no report was given against him.
24. R.W.1 is the driver of the offending vehicle. During his cross-examination, he
has admitted that the Police filed a criminal case against him for his rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Interestingly, he stated that he do not know
about the pendency of the said case. He has also admitted that he did not give any
report against the petitioner for accident and that he was released on bail in criminal
case filed against him.
1
2009 (13) SCC 530
11
25. The evidence of R.W.1 suggests that he was speaking in disguise. In view of
the evidence of P.W.1 and the admissions of R.W.1 and in the light of the statutory
guidance and precedential guidance, without any hesitation, the findings of the
learned MACT as to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle / bus being
the cause for the accident is found fit to be accepted and concurred with. There is no
material available to take a contra view. Accordingly, the negligence of the driver of
the A.P.S.R.T.C bus is accepted as the cause for the accident.
Quantification of compensation:
26(i). The petitioner is the driver of the offending vehicle at the relevant time and the
same is not in dispute.
(ii). P.W.2, the doctor who treated the petitioner, deposed that he is a retired
Orthopedic Surgeon.
(iii). On 10.06.2008, the petitioner was admitted into the hospital and below-knee
amputation of the right leg was done by operation on 10.06.2008.
(iv). On 11.07.2008, debridement was done for the below-knee amputee.
(v). On 22.07.2008, skin grafting was done for the raw area over the right below-
knee amputee.
(vi). The Petitioner was discharged from the hospital on 28.07.2008.
(vii). Ex.A5 is the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board assessed the
disability at 70%. The Petitioner cannot drive any vehicle.
(viii). It was suggested to P.W.2 that the disability is to be assessed at 50%.
12
27. If functional disability is taken into consideration, the petitioner, who was driver
at the time of the accident, he is unable to discharge his duties as a driver. Therefore,
his functional disability can be accepted at 100%.
Precedential Guidance:
28. 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
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
_________
2
2025 AIAR (Civil) 1
3
2020 (04) SCC 413
13
(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 Gaud5,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 Corporation6, 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.”
(iii). In Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another7, 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:
4
2010(10)SCC 341
5
2007 (14) SCC 61
6
1992(2) SCC 567
7
2011 (1) SCC 343
14
(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.
(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
8
2023 (3) SCC 439
9
1995 (1) SCC 551
15with 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:
29. The pleaded income of the petitioner is Rs.6,000/- per month. The learned
MACT has taken the income at Rs.5,000/- per month towards salary and batta.
Although the same is not proved by cogent evidence, taking into consideration the
socio-economic circumstances of the year 2008, in which the accident occurred,
Rs.5,000/- per month can be accepted, including the addition towards the future
prospects. Accordingly, the income of the petitioner / injured can be accepted at
Rs.5,000/- per month and Rs.60,000/- per annum. Instead of taking the disability at
50%, it can be taken at 100% in view of amputation. Thereby, the loss of income to
the petitioner can be accepted at Rs.60,000/- per annum. The applicable multiplier is
„15‟, whereby the entitlement of petitioner for compensation under the head of loss of
income comes to 9,00,000/- (Rs.60,000/- x 15). Deduction of 1/3rd towards personal
expenditure is also not necessary, as the claim is by the injured.
30. In view of the discussion made above, the entitlement of the claimants for
reasonable compensation in comparison to the compensation awarded by the
learned MACT is found as follows:
Sl. Head Granted by the Fixed by this
No. learned MACT Appellate Court
1. Pain and suffering Rs.20,000/- Rs.50,000/-
2. Extra nourishment -Nil- Rs.15,000/-
16
3. Medical Rs.30,000/- Rs.50,000/-
expenditure/treatment
4. Attendant charges -Nil- Rs.15,000/-
5. Transportation -Nil- Rs.15,000/-
6. Loss of income due to Rs.3,20,000/- Rs.9,00,000/-
disability
7. Loss of earnings during Rs.40,000/- Rs.40,000/-
the period of
hospitalization etc.
8. Loss of Amenities of Life Rs.20,000/- Rs.15,000/-
Total: Rs.4,30,000/- Rs.11,00,000/-
Interest (per annum) 9% 6%
Considering the facts
and circumstance of
the case and the long
lapse of time, interest
is awarded at 6% per
annum
31. For the reasons aforesaid and in view of the discussion made above, the point
framed is answered concluding that the claimants are entitled for compensation of
Rs.11,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till
the date of realization and the order and decree dated 19.03.2012 passed by the
learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.621 of 2008 require modification accordingly.
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:
17
(1) Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others10, 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.”
12
(3) Ramla and Others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others
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, there is no need for a new cause of action to claim an
enhanced amount. The courts are duty-bound to award just compensation.”10
(2003) 2 SCC 274
11
2020 (04) SCC 413
12
(2019) 2 SCC 192
18
Point No.2:
33. In the result,
(i) The appeal filed by the A.P.S.R.T.C vide M.A.C.M.A.No.2814 of 2014 is
dismissed.
(ii) Cross objections filed on behalf of the claimants vide I.A.No.1 of 2016
(XOBJ 15867 of 2016) are allowed.
(iii) Compensation awarded by the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.621 of
2008 at Rs.4,30,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum is
modified and enhanced to Rs.11,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 6%
per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
(iv) Claimant(s) before the learned MACT / Respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein
are liable to pay the Court fee for the enhanced part of the compensation,
before the learned MACT.
(v) The enhanced compensation amount shall be apportioned equally among
all the claimants.
(vi) Respondent No.1 before the learned MACT i.e. A.P.S.R.T.C is liable to
pay the compensation.
(vii) Time for payment/deposit of the balance amount is one month.
(a) If the claimants/ respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein furnish the bank account
number within 15 days from today, Respondents No.1 / A.P.S.R.T.C.
shall deposit the amount directly into the bank account of the claimant
and file the necessary proof before the learned MACT.
19
(b) If the claimants fail to comply with (vii)(a) above, respondent No.1 /
A.P.S.R.T.C shall deposit the amount before the learned MACT and the
claimant is entitled to withdraw the amount at once on deposit.
(viii) There shall be no order as to costs in the appeal.
34. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand
closed.
____________________________
A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J
Date:06.08.2026
Knr
Whether the order is:
Speaking Reasoned ✓ Reportable Non-reportable ✓ 20 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A.No.2814 of 2014 06.08.2026 Knr
