Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
The Apsrtc vs Ediga Ravi Another on 21 July, 2026
1
Date of reserved for orders : 01.05.2026
Date of pronouncement : 21.07.2026
Date of uploading : 21.07.2026
APHC010429702014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3520]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE 21st DAY OF JULY 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3834/2014
Between:
1. THE APSRTC, REP. BY ITS M.D., MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD
...APPELLANT
AND
1. EDIGA RAVI ANOTHER, S/O E. HANUMANTHAPPA CULTIVATION & T.V.
MECHANIC MAREPALLI VILLAGE, KALYANDURG MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR
DISTRICT.
2. M ABDUL KALAM, S/O M. RAZAK SAB MUSLIM, MAJOR D.NO. 8/585,
JAYANAGAR, KALYANDURG ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Courtto allow the appeal by
setting aside the Decree and Judgment dt. 17-2-2011 made in OP No. 777 of 2008 on
the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum Addl. District Judge, Anantapur and
pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2012(MACMAMP 1816 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 condone the
2
delay of 309 days that has occurred in filing the present appeal in the interest of justice
and to pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2012(MACMAMP 1886 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 stay all further
proceedings including the execution of the Judgement and decree made in OP No. 777
of 2008 dated 17-2-2011 on the file of MACT-cum-Addl. District Judge (FTC) Anantapur
and to pass
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC)
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. K SRINIVAS
The Court made the following:
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A.No.3834 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
Introductory:
1. Respondent No.1 in O.P.No.777 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal-cum-the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of SCs & STs Cases-cum-Additional
District Judge, Anantapur (for short “the learned MACT”) filed the present appeal
questioning the order and decree dated 17.02.2011 passed by the learned MACT on the
ground that the liability imposed on the appellant and the quantum of compensation
awarded in favour of respondent No.1 / claimant are not correct.
2. Respondent No.2 herein is the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing No.AP 10Z
4189 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”). He remained ex parte before
the learned MACT.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as the
petitioner/claimant and the respondents as and how they are arrayed before the learned
MACT.
Case of the claimant:
4(i). On the fateful day i.e.18.07.2007 at about 08:00 a.m., when the petitioner was
travelling in Jeep bearing No.AP 02 A 2889 near Nagireddypalli Village at about
12:30 p.m., the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus / the offending vehicle coming from Kalyandurg side
came in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the jeep, whereby the accident
4occurred. The petitioner sustained injuries on the head and all over the body. He was
shifted to Government Hospital, Kalyandurg and from there to a private hospital. He
took treatment for a period of two months and incurred medical expenditure of
Rs.50,000/-.
(ii). A case in Crime No.20 of 2007 was registered against the driver of the offending
vehicle in Brahmasamudram Police Station for causing the accident and subsequently
the said driver of the offending vehicle was charge sheeted. Since the petitioner
suffered grievous injuries and disability, he is entitled for just and adequate
compensation.
Case of respondent No.1 / appellant :
5(i). The petitioner shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the driver of the
offending vehicle, injuries suffered by the petitioner, nature and effect of injuries, medical
expenditure incurred and entitlement for compensation.
(ii). Further, it is the specific case of respondent No.1/appellant that the negligence of
the driver of the jeep is the cause for accident.
(iii). As there is no insurance to the jeep, the petitioner got the case foisted against the
driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus / the offending vehicle and the petition is bad for
non-joinder of necessary parties.
(iv). In any event the petition is liable to be dismissed against respondent No.1 /
A.P.S.R.T.C.
5Evidence:
6(i). The petitioner was examined as P.W.1. (ii). Dr. M. Narendra Naik and Dr. Jagannath, who attend the petitioner, were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3.
(iii). Further, the petitioner relied on Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-Wound Certificate, Ex.A3-
Charge Sheet and Ex.A4-Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board, Government
General Hospital, Anantapur.
(iv). No evidence is adduced on behalf of the respondents.
Findings of the learned MACT:
7. By referring to the evidence of P.W.1, the injured and eye-witness and the crime
record, the negligence of the driver of the RTC bus / the offending vehicle is acceptable.
In view of the injuries mentioned in Ex.A2, the healing time of two months, the age of the
petitioner being „35‟ years and also the opinion of the doctors who treated the petitioner
i.e. P.Ws.2 and 3 and also the disability suffered by the petitioner assessed at 30%, the
petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.75,000/- towards loss of income,
Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.6,000/- towards loss of earnings, and
Rs.6,000/- towards medical expenses, extra nourishment, transportation and attendant
charges. In all, the claimant is entitled for Rs.1,12,000/-.
6
Arguments in the appeal:
For the appellant / A.P.S.R.T.C:
8(i). There is no basis for imposing liability and believing the negligence of the driver of
the APSRTC bus / the offending vehicle.
(ii). The negligence of the driver of the jeep is ignored.
(iii). The compensation awarded under various heads is excessive.
For the claimant:
9. The compensation awarded is not just and adequate and the same require
enhancement.
10. Heard both sides extensively. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration is
given to the arguments advanced by both sides.
11. The points that arise for determination in this appeal are:
1) Whether the liability imposed and compensation awarded at Rs.1,12,000/- by
the learned MACT under the impugned order and decree dated 17.02.2011 in
O.P.No.777 of 2008 are sustainable in law and on facts or require any
interference and if so on what grounds and to which extent?
2) What is the result of the appeal?
7
Point No.1:
Accident and Negligence:
Statutory Guidance:
12(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 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:
13. 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..”1
2009 (13) SCC 530
8
14. However, the petitioner is an eye witness to the accident and injured, as P.W.1.
he has clearly deposed about the accident. The driver of the A.P.S.RT.C bus / the
offending vehicle is not examined. No other evidence is placed on record by appellant.
There is no oath against oath. Therefore, findings of the learned MACT on negligence
need not be interfered.
Quantum:
Precedential Guidance:
15. 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
2
2025 AIAR (Civil) 1
3
2020 (04) SCC 413
9
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
_________
(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.”
4
2010(10)SCC 341
5
2007 (14) SCC 61
6
1992(2) SCC 567
10
(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:
(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
7
2011 (1) SCC 343
8
2023 (3) SCC 439
11compensation 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 and findings:
16. As per wound certificate the petitioner sustained following injuries.
(1) Head injury on fore head, 52×1 cm, bleeding present,
(2) Injury to right knee, bleeding present
(3) Bleeding from nose and
(4) Abrasion over left side of face
17. P.W.2 / Dr. M. Narendra Naik deposed that on 18.07.2007 he examined P.W.1
and found the injuries mentioned above and that he has issued the wound certificate-
Ex.A2. He has opined that injury No.2 is grievous in nature.
9
1995 (1) SCC 551
12
18. P.W.3 / Dr. Jagannath deposed that he is one of the members of the Medical
Board, GGH, Anantapur. The disability of the petitioner was assessed at 30% by the
Medical Board. There is dislocation of the right hip, which was reduced, leading to mild
arthritis. Injury to the right knee resulted in partial patellectomy with wasting of right
thigh muscles and decreased range of movements of the right hip and right knee joint.
Limping is present. The disability assessed is not for the whole body, but for the limb
only.
19. The petitioner was aged about 35 years, as per Ex.A2. He claimed that he was a
T.V. Mechanic and was also attending cultivation. No proof is filed. Even for medical
expenditure, medical bills etc. are not filed. But, notionally reasonable amount can be
awarded to the petitioner. From the evidence, the following aspects are clear.
(i). the petitioner sustained four injuries and one among them is grievous.
(ii). The petitioner suffered 30% disability.
(iii). There is no proof of income, but notional income can be accepted.
20. This Court finds that, upon considering the socio-economic circumstances of the
year 2008, the income of the petitioner can be taken at around Rs.3,000/- per month.
After adding future prospects to the tune of 40%, his income can be taken at Rs.4,200/-
per month. In view of the 30% disability, loss of income can be accepted at Rs.1,260/-
per month, which comes to Rs.15,120/- per annum. For the age group of 31-35 years,
the applicable multiplier is „16‟. When the same is applied, the entitlement of the
13
claimant for compensation under the head of permanent disability comes to
Rs.2,41,920/- (Rs.15,120/- x 16).
21. In the light of the evidence and the precedential guidance, the entitlement of
claimant 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.25,000/- Rs.25,000/-
2. Loss of earnings Rs.6,000/- Rs.6,000/-
(during treatment)
3. Extra nourishment Rs.6,000/-
4. Transportation Rs.6,000/- Rs.5,000/-
5. Attendant charges Rs.5,000/-
6. Medical Rs.10,000/-
expenditure/treatment
7. Loss of earning capacity Rs.75,000/- Rs.2,41,920/-
due to permanent
disability
Total: Rs.1,12,000/- Rs.2,98,920/-
Interest (per annum) 7.5% 6%
22. For the reasons aforesaid and in view of the discussion made above, the point
framed is answered in favour of the claimant, concluding that the claimant is entitled for
compensation of Rs.2,98,920/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum and the order
and decree dated 17.02.2011 passed by the learned MACT in O.P.No.777 of 2008
requires modification accordingly.
14
Granting of more compensation than what claimed, if the claimant is otherwise
entitled:-
23. 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 Others10, at para 21 of the judgment.
(2) Kajal Vs. Jagadish Chand and Ors.11 at para 33 of the judgment.
12
(3) Ramla and Others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others atpara 5 of the judgment.
Enhancement of compensation in the absence of appeal by the claimant:
24(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
10
(2003) 2 SCC 274
11
2020 (04) SCC 413
12
(2019) 2 SCC 192
15by the Division Bench of this Court in a case between National Insurance Company
Limited vs. E. Suseelamma and others13 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 (13 supra) case are in compliance
with the observations of Hon‟ble Apex Court in Surekha and Others vs. Santosh and
Others14.
(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:
25. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. However,
(i) The compensation awarded by the learned MACT in O.P.No.777 of 2008 at
Rs.1,12,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum is modified and
enhanced to Rs.2,98,920/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from
the date of petition till the date of realization.
13
2023 SCC Online AP 1725
14
(2021) 16 SCC 467
16
(ii) Claimant is liable to pay the Court fee for the enhanced part of the
compensation, before the learned MACT.
(iii) Respondent No.1 before the learned MACT / A.P.S.R.T.C is liable to pay
the compensation.
(iv) Time for payment/deposit of the balance amount is two months.
(a) If the claimant furnishes the bank account number within 15 days from
today, the Respondents shall deposit the amount directly into the bank
account of the claimant and file the necessary proof before the learned
MACT.
(b) If the claimant fails to comply with (iii)(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.
(v) There shall be no order as to costs in the appeal.
26. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand
closed.
____________________________
A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J
Date:21.07.2026
Knr
Whether the order is:
Speaking Reasoned ✓ Reportable Non-reportable ✓ 17 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A.No.3834 of 2014 21.07.2026 Knr
