-
by sayum
06 April 2026 2:01 PM
"Merely Because Claimants Haven’t Appealed, Courts Cannot Shy Away From Awarding What is Rightfully Due Under Law", Andhra Pradesh High Court delivered a reportable judgment modifying the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Despite no cross-appeal from the claimants, the Court invoked its obligation under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to grant enhanced compensation totaling Rs. 26,80,000/- along with interest at 7.5% per annum, citing that just compensation is a judicial duty, not subject to procedural technicalities.
The case revolved around the death of Chintala Sambha Murthy, a 45-year-old self-employed photographer who was fatally hit by an APSRTC bus while on his motorcycle. Originally awarded Rs.19,97,000/- by the Tribunal, the High Court found the compensation inadequate in light of binding precedents, including National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680], Sarla Verma v. DTC [(2009) 6 SCC 121], and Ramla v. National Insurance Co. [(2019) 2 SCC 192].
Fatal Road Mishap: APSRTC Driver Held Solely Negligent – Evidence of Eyewitness and Police Records Unrebutted
The Court upheld the Tribunal's finding of rash and negligent driving by the APSRTC driver as the sole cause of the accident. Despite assertions by APSRTC that the deceased was overtaking another motorcycle, the Court observed:
“Though the driver of the offending vehicle was examined as RW-1, nothing was elicited to prove that the deceased was driving the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner… RW-1 merely reiterated the contents of the counter affidavit.”
An eyewitness (PW-2) categorically stated that the APSRTC bus, driven at high speed, rammed the deceased from behind, resulting in his instant death. Additionally, police records, including FIR (Ex.A1) and chargesheet (Ex.A9), established driver culpability. The High Court, aligning with the Tribunal, held:
“In the absence of any evidence to rebut, it can be held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent-driver.”
Inaccurate Income Certificate Rejected, But Income of Rs.18,000/- Accepted – Future Prospects Added as per Pranay Sethi
The claimants alleged that the deceased earned Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per month as a professional photographer. To support this, they produced Ex.A5, a certificate issued by a local photographers' association. However, both the Tribunal and the High Court rejected this as not being a salary certificate:
“This Court is also of the opinion that Ex.A5 is not a salary certificate and therefore no reliance can be placed on the same.”
Given the absence of reliable proof of higher income, the Tribunal’s finding of Rs.18,000/- per month as reasonable income was upheld. However, the High Court faulted the Tribunal for not adding future prospects, holding:
“As per Pranay Sethi, 25% future prospects should be added for a self-employed deceased aged between 40 to 50 years.”
Accordingly, future prospects of Rs.54,000/- annually were added, bringing the annual income to Rs.2,70,000/-, from which one-third was deducted for personal expenses.
Tribunal Erred in Applying Wrong Multiplier – Corrected from 13 to 14 Based on Sarla Verma
The Tribunal had applied a multiplier of 13, but the High Court corrected it to 14, considering that the deceased was aged 45 years at the time of the accident. The Court referred to paragraph 42 of Sarla Verma judgment, which laid down standardized multipliers for different age groups:
“Multiplier of 14 has to be applied if the deceased was aged between 41 to 45 years. The Tribunal erred in applying 13.”
The recalculated loss of dependency amounted to Rs.25,20,000/-.
Additional Compensation Awarded for Conventional Heads: Consortium, Estate, Love and Affection
Citing Pranay Sethi, the Court found the Tribunal had failed to grant compensation under conventional heads such as loss of consortium, loss of estate, and love and affection. Rectifying this, the High Court awarded:
This brought the total compensation to Rs.26,80,000/-.
No Cross Appeal Required to Grant Just Compensation: Function of Court Is Welfare-Oriented Under MV Act
Perhaps the most significant legal principle affirmed by the High Court was the duty of courts to enhance compensation even in the absence of a cross appeal by claimants. Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ramla v. National Insurance Co., the Court held:
“There is no restriction that the Court cannot award compensation exceeding the claimed amount… The function of the Tribunal or Court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to award just compensation. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation.”
The Court emphasized that the determination of just compensation is a mandatory duty, and procedural technicalities cannot be allowed to obstruct rightful entitlements under a beneficial statute.
Interest Enhanced from 6% to 7.5% per annum – Consistent Judicial Practice Followed
While the Tribunal had granted interest at 6% per annum, the High Court increased it to 7.5%, noting that this has become a consistent rate awarded in motor accident claims:
“In view of the fact that this Court consistently awards interest at 7.5% per annum, the same rate of interest shall be granted to the case on hand also.”
High Court Modifies Tribunal’s Award to Uphold ‘Just Compensation’ Mandate Under MV Act
In conclusion, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the appeal filed by APSRTC, but enhanced the compensation to Rs.26,80,000/- with 7.5% interest, modifying the Tribunal’s earlier award. The Court directed APSRTC to deposit the enhanced amount within two months, while reiterating the legal position that:
“The courts are duty-bound to award just compensation especially while dealing with the beneficial and welfare legislation.”
Date of Decision: 20 November 2025
