Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 26197
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
V. Sujatha, J
APSRTC – Appellant
Versus
Javvaji Venkateswarlu – Respondent
MACMA No.293 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Aravala Rama Rao
For the Respondents: Inakollu Venkateswarlu
An appellate court will not interfere with a compensation award in a motor accident case where negligence is established through consistent witness testimony and police reports, and where the assessment of income, future prospects, and multiplier application adheres to settled judicial precedents.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Quantum of compensation - Auto driver aged 25 - Tribunal assessed monthly income at Rs.4,000/- which was affirmed - Determination of future prospects at 40% and deduction of 1/4th for personal expenses upheld - Multiplier of 18 correctly applied for age group 21-25 - Compensation under conventional heads (funeral, consortium, estate) found just and reasonable. (Paras 14, 15)
(B) Negligence - Appeal against finding of fact - Eye-witness account and police records (FIR, Charge sheet) corroborate rash and negligent driving of bus - Appellate court finds no reason to interfere with trial court’s finding on negligence. (Para 13)
Facts of the case:
Deceased, an auto driver, died in a road accident when an RTC bus dashed against his auto while trying to avoid a cyclist. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.9,77,200/-. The Corporation challenged this, citing lack of negligence, excessive compensation, and non-joinder of parties.
Findings of Court:
The Court found the evidence of the eye-witness and police reports sufficient to establish negligence. It upheld the quantum of compensation, noting the reliance on established precedents for future prospects and multiplier application.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal was correct in its finding of negligence on the part of the bus driver and whether the awarded compensation was excessive.
Ratio Decidendi: Where documentary evidence (FIR, Charge sheet) and consistent witness testimony support the finding of rash and negligent driving, the appellate court will not disturb the tribunal's findings. Furthermore, when income estimation and multiplier application align with settled legal precedents, the award is deemed just.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. assessment of negligence based on evidence and eyewitness testimony. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 2. mathematical calculation and justification of the compensation award. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
...Respondents
Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Courtpleased to
allow the MACMA by setting aside the order and decree dated 07-02-2022
passed in M.V.O.P. No. 398 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Motor
Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Ongole,
Prakasam District and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2022
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
pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Order and
Decree dated 07-02-2022 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 398 of 2014 on the file of
the Court of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional
District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District including of execution proceedings,
pending disposal of the above MACMA and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
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
pleased to permit the petitioners herein to withdraw the amount deposited by
the Respondents/Appellants in pursuance of the order dated 18.08.2022
passed in MAGMA NO: 293 OF 2022 and pass
Counsel for the Petitioners: ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC
KKAC)
Counsel for the Respondents: INAKOLLU VENKATESWARLU
The Court made the following:
3
2026V:AS,PJ HC:29868
MACMA No.293 of 2022
J U D G M E N T:
The present appeal is filed by the appellants/APSRTC challenging the
order and decree dated 07.02.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.398 of 2014 by the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Prakasam
at Ongole, wherein the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.9,77,200/-
(Rupees Nine Lakhs Seventy Seven Thousand Two Hundred only) to the
petitioners/respondents No.1 to 4 herein, as against the claim of
Rs.10,00,000/-, on account of the death of one Javvaji Venkateswarlu in a
motor accident that occurred on 30.10.2012.
02. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they
are arrayed before the Tribunal.
03. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:
a) The deceased, Javvaji Venkateswarlu, was an auto driver. He
purchased an auto bearing No. AP27TU2753 in the name of his wife and was
earning Rs.500/- to Rs.1,000/- per day by driving the said auto and
maintaining his family. While so, on 30.10.2012 at about 1.30 p.m., one
Kovelakuntla Narasamma and her daughter, K. Balamma, hired the auto of
the deceased at Kambalapadu Bus Stand Centre to go to their house and
loaded grass bundles and vegetables into the said auto. Thereafter, they
boarded the auto. On the way, when the auto crossed Chinakanalu on the
Podili-Giddalur Road, at about 2.15 p.m., an RTC bus bearing
No.AP28Z5326, proceeding towards Kanigiri in the opposite direction, was
4
2026V:AS,PJ HC:29868
MACMA No.293 of 2022
driven by its driver/respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, at high
speed and without blowing the horn, and dashed against a cyclist, namely,
Kovelakuntla Yerraiah. As a result, he fell on the road, and thereafter the bus
dashed against the auto of the deceased and dragged it for some distance. As
a result, the deceased, who was driving the auto, died on the spot and the
inmates of the auto sustained severe bleeding injuries. Immediately, the
injured were shifted to CHC, Podili, in a 108 Ambulance, where Kovelakuntla
Narasamma and Kovelakuntla Yerraiah were declared brought dead. It is
further averred in the petition that the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of respondent No.1, the driver of RTC bus bearing No.
AP28Z5326.
b) A case in Crime No.167 of 2012 was registered against respondent
No.1 at Podili Police Station. The 1st petitioner is the mother, the 2nd petitioner
is the wife and petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are the children of the deceased. The
deceas
