Back
Allows Withdrawal Of Motor Accident Appeal; No Needed
In a significant ruling on appellate procedure in motor accident claims, the has held that an appellant – here the – is entitled to unconditionally withdraw its appeal. The court made it clear that the respondent‑claimants cannot insist on a merits‑based disposal of the appeal in the absence of any cross‑objections or cross‑appeal filed by them.
Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma pronounced the verdict on , dismissing MACMA No. 751 of 2014 as withdrawn but saddling the APSRTC with costs of Rs.5,000 along with interest at 6% per annum from the date the claimants entered appearance in the High Court.
The Dispute: APSRTC’s Appeal Against Compensation
The case arose out of an award passed by the (MVOP No. 142 of 2008). The tribunal had granted a compensation of Rs.4,79,194 to the family of the deceased P. Lingakara, who died in a road accident involving an APSRTC bus. Aggrieved, APSRTC filed the present appeal questioning both its liability and the quantum of compensation.
When the matter was taken up for final hearing, the corporation’s counsel informed the court that it wished to withdraw the appeal. However, the respondents‑claimants objected, arguing that the High Court, being a court exercising appellate jurisdiction under , must independently examine whether the compensation awarded was “” – even if the appellant no longer pressed the appeal.
The Legal Tussle: Withdrawal v.
The claimants relied on the ’s decision in Surekha and Others vs. Santosh and Others ((2021) 16 SCC 467) and a Division Bench ruling of the in National Insurance Company Limited vs. E. Suseelamma and Others (2023 SCC Online AP 1725) to contend that the appellate court can enhance compensation even without a cross‑appeal. They submitted that the Motor Vehicles Act, being a , empowers the court to test the justness of the award whenever the matter is before it.
, the appellant’s counsel maintained that an is a matter of right under , and that respondents cannot force a decision on merits when they have not filed any cross‑objections.
What the High Court Said
Justice Sarma meticulously examined the procedural scheme. The judge noted that gives the appellant the right to begin; if the appellant does not press the appeal, the respondents do not acquire a right to demand a merits disposal. The court observed:
“When the appellant is not pressing the appeal and is not insisting upon disposal on merits, the respondents cannot insist for disposal or dismissal of the appeal on merits.”
On the claimants’ failure to file cross‑objections, the judgment remarked:
“What prevented the respondents from filing cross‑objections or a cross‑appeal is not known. In the absence of cross‑objections or cross appeal, the submission that in the event of enhancing the compensation, the respondent(s) will pay Court fee for the enhanced part of the compensation is not sounding fair or logical.”
The court clarified that the principles in Surekha and E. Suseelamma could be invoked only if the appeal was being heard on merits; they do not empower the court to proceed when the appellant unequivocally withdraws.
Costs with Interest – A Decretal Innovation
Recognising that the claimants were forced to appear before the High Court because of APSRTC’s appeal, Justice Sarma held that mere withdrawal without compensating the respondents would be unjust. Relying on , the court awarded Rs.5,000 as costs and directed interest at 6% per annum from the date of appearance of the claimants. The judge relied on Janaki Nath Roy, Narendra Nath Roy & Co. Ltd. (in liquidation) vs. Sambhu Nath Mullick and others (1971 SCC OnLine Cal 77) to affirm that costs form part of the “” and may carry interest.
“The costs component, which the Court feels proper, also becomes a . Therefore, the claimants are entitled for interest on costs.”
Decision and Directions
The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with the following operative directions: - APSRTC shall deposit Rs.5,000 with 6% interest per annum (from the date of claimants’ appearance in the appeal) and any remaining decretal amount within one month. - If claimant No.1 (wife of the deceased) furnishes her bank account details within 15 days, the deposit shall be made directly into that account; otherwise, the amount shall be deposited before the Tribunal for immediate withdrawal.
This ruling settles the procedural position that an appellant in a motor accident case can bid farewell to its appeal at will. Respondents seeking higher compensation must take the precaution of filing cross‑objections or a cross‑appeal; they cannot convert an appeal filed by the opposite party into a fresh opportunity for enhancement.
