Back
2025 Supreme(AP) 1053
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, J.
Mrs.Veerla Akkamma, W/O.Late Veerla Venkateswarlu & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
D Satyanarayana S/O.Poorna Chandra Rao and ors. - Respondents
Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 73 of 2012, Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 1221 of 2014
Decided On : 24-10-2025
For the Appellant : Ch Ravindra Babu
For the Respondent: Gudi Srinivasu
Under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, claimants need not prove negligence if vehicle involvement is established, yet negligence can be examined when disputed, with compensation reflecting justice and potentially exceeding statutory caps if warranted.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 163-A - Claim for compensation for death in a road traffic accident - Deceased was pillion riding and died due to negligence of a lorry driver - Original award of MACT was Rs.1,59,500/- which was enhanced to Rs.7,70,000/- on appeal after reassessing income and applying correct multipliers as per Supreme Court guidelines. (Paras 4, 42-56)
(B) Negligence - The claimants need not prove negligence under Section 163-A but can establish it based on the involvement of the offending vehicle; however, negligence can be examined when the defendants dispute it. (Paras 36-39)
Facts of the case:
The legal representatives of the deceased pillion rider filed claims for compensation after he was killed in an accident involving a lorry. The lower tribunal awarded a specific amount, which was contested by both sides for being either insufficient or an improper apportionment of liability. (Paras 2-8)
Findings of Court:
The correct quantum of compensation was reassessed and substantially increased, determining that the deceased’s monthly income should be placed higher than initially awarded. Moreover, the court found no contributory negligence by the motorcycle rider involved in the accident. (Paras 54-56)
Issues: Key issues addressed included the proper apportionment of negligence and the total compensation award adequacy under Section 163-A. (Paras 1, 3)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that under Section 163-A, the focus is on the involvement of the vehicle, and compensation must reflect just compensation principles guided by precedent. The statutory caps could be exceeded where justified by the circumstances of the case. (Paras 48-50)
Result: Appeals allowed; the total compensation was enhanced to Rs.7,70,000/- with 7.5% interest from the date of the petition.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the case and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. factual account of the accident and claimants' loss. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 3. respondent pleas regarding negligence and liability. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 4. court's observations on negligence and established claims. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
JUDGMENT :
A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, J.
Introductory:
1. Claimants in M.V.O.P.No.465 of 2006 on the file of Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur at Narasaraopet (for short “the learned MACT”) filed M.A.C.M.A.No.73 of 2012 and Respondent No.4 / M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited before the learned MACT filed M.A.C.M.A.No.1221 of 2014.
2. Claiming compensation for the death of one Veerla Venkateswarlu (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in a road traffic accident, his legal representatives and dependents filed the claim petition M.V.O.P.No.465 of 2006 with a prayer for awarding compensation.
3. The deceased was a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing No.AP 07 TR AC-0198. A lorry bearing No.AP 16 U 9735 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”), driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from behind, dashed the motorcycle and ran over them, causing multiple injuries and instantaneous death.
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as the claimants and the respondents as and how they are arrayed before the learned MACT.
5. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.2 is the Insurance Company with which the offending vehicle was insured. Respondent No.3 is the owner and rider of the motorcycle on which the deceased was travelling and the same was insured with Respondent No.4.
6. The learned MACT, under the impugned judgment, awarded compensation of Rs.1,59,500/-, apportioning the liability at 50% each between Respondent Nos.2 and 4, granting liberty to Respondent No.4 to recover the compensation amount paid by it from Respondent No.3.
7. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 remained ex parte before the learned MACT.
8. The claimants are questioning the just and reasonable nature of compensation awarded. Respondent No.4 is questioning the liability imposed. There is no appeal by respondent No.2. However, the respondent No.2 is supporting the judgment of the learned MACT as to apportionment of the liability at 50% among respondent Nos.2 and 4, while opposing enhancement of compensation.
9. Heard the learned counsel for claimants/appellants in M.A.C.M.A.No.73 of 2012, the learned counsel for appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.1221 of 2014, and also the learned counsels for respondent Nos.2 and 4 before the learned MACT. Perused the record available. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by both sides.
Case of the claimants:
10. Claimant No.1 is the wife, claimant Nos.2 and 3 are children and claimant Nos.4 and 5 are parents of the deceased. The deceased was aged about '40', doing sheep business, earning Rs.8,000/- per month and contributing the same for the family. On the fateful day viz. 01.12.2004 at about 06:30 am, the deceased, along with respondent No.3 was proceeding to Dhulipalla via Piduguralla and whey they reached Buggavagu near Piduguralla on their motorcycle, the offending vehicle came in a rash and negligent manner from behind, dashed the motorcycle and ran over the deceased causing instantaneous death.
11. A case in Crime No.255 of 2004 for the offences under section 304-A IPC was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and he was subsequently charge sheeted. The negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle/lorry viz. the respondent No.1 is the cause for the accident. Petitioners lost all valuable support, both financial and emotional. Hence, entitled for just and reasonable compensation.
Plea of Respondent No.2:
12. The petitioners shall prove the accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle/lorry, age, occupation, income a
