Back
APSRTC Appeal Dismissed: Enhances Compensation, Flags Outdated Fee Rules
Justice After Two Decades: Family of Deceased Clerk Gets Enhanced Relief
In a landmark ruling that blends compassion with systemic critique, the dismissed a two-decade-old appeal by the , enhancing the compensation payable to the family of a deceased college clerk from ₹7.10 lakh to ₹11.94 lakh. Justice Alapati Giridhar also imposed of ₹25,000 on the state corporation and urged a sweeping revision of the , which he found "outdated" and disconnected from prevailing legal realities.
The Tragic Accident and the Long Legal Battle
On , Vellanki Venkateswara Rao, a 41-year-old college clerk, was cycling near Brother's Ice Parlour, Benz Circle, when an APSRTC bus (AP 9Z 3883) driven rashly struck him from behind. He died on the spot. The claimants – his widowed mother, wife, son, and daughter – filed a petition before the , seeking ₹7.10 lakh in compensation.
The Tribunal, after examining witnesses and documents including salary certificates and service records, held the bus driver and awarded the claimed amount. The APSRTC appealed, primarily arguing that the deceased's monthly income of ₹5,900 was not properly proved and that the of 15 was excessive.
High Court's Power to Grant
The claimants had not filed any , but Justice Giridhar invoked to correct the Tribunal's errors and award "" in line with the 's landmark ruling in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi ().
The Court found that the deceased was in permanent employment, having worked since 1983, and thus entitled to 30% . It also applied the correct of 14 (for age 41) and deducted only 1/4th for personal expenses (since there were four dependents), instead of the Tribunal's 1/3rd deduction. The was recalculated at ₹9,66,420.
Additionally, the Court awarded ₹48,000 each to the four claimants towards (following ), ₹18,000 for , and ₹18,000 for .
The Unjust Fee Structure: A Call for Systemic Change
In a detailed discussion that goes beyond the facts of the case, Justice Giridhar examined the . Rule 15 read with Rule 40 caps advocate fees in motor accident claims at ₹25,000 – a sum the Court found grossly inadequate compared to the actual borne by litigants.
Citing the 's observations in and , the High Court noted that nominal fees encourage and force claimants to accept unfair settlements. The Court illustrated the disparity starkly: a family winning a ₹2.17 crore claim would get only ₹25,000 as advocate fees, while a plaintiff in a money suit for the same amount would get over ₹6.5 lakh.
"This Court is of the humble view that the fee prescribing minimum, maximum etc., in the Rules, 2010, requires revision under
,"
the judgment stated. It directed the Registrar General to place the matter before the Chief Justice for consideration.
Key Observations from the Bench
"The fee prescribing minimum, maximum etc., in the Rules, 2010, requires revision... some of them are with outdated fee structure, with no correlation with the prevailing rates of fees."
"If the law is implemented in this fashion by the Courts... the frivolous or will be curbed, which will enhance the image of the Judiciary in the administration of justice."
"Thus generally the Insurer or Insured is benefited for allowing nominal Court Fee... at the cost of the Claimants."
The Final Order
Justice Giridhar dismissed the APSRTC's appeal with of ₹25,000, payable to the claimants. The enhanced compensation of ₹11,94,420 shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization, subject to payment of additional court fee by the claimants within 30 days. The Court also directed APSRTC to recover the from the employee responsible for filing and pursuing the appeal for 20 years, and to consider initiating departmental action.
The ruling sends a strong message: public sector corporations cannot delay justice indefinitely, and the legal framework governing must evolve to ensure real access to justice.
