Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case

In a significant judgment, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has enhanced the compensation awarded to the claimants in a motor vehicle accident case from Rs. 1,89,000 to Rs. 2,57,000. The court, led by Justice Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, stressed the necessity of thorough review and coordination between related appeals to ensure just outcomes.
The case involved appeals and a review application arising from a motor accident that resulted in the death of Gantreti Appala Guruvulu. The claimants, consisting of the deceased’s parents and siblings, sought compensation for his death due to a tractor and trailer accident. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) had initially awarded Rs. 1,89,000 as compensation. Both the claimants and the insurance company appealed the decision, leading to a review by the High Court.
Justice Rao highlighted the procedural oversight where the pendency of a related appeal was not disclosed during the initial disposal of one of the appeals. The court rectified this by issuing a common judgment for both the review application and the related appeal, ensuring a comprehensive and fair resolution.
The court confirmed the tribunal’s finding of negligence by the tractor driver, which led to the accident. The High Court emphasized that under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, establishing negligence is not mandatory for compensation claims; mere involvement of the vehicle suffices. “Mere prove of involvement of vehicle in an accident is sufficient in a claim application under Section 163A,” noted Justice Rao.
The deceased, a 20-year-old bachelor earning Rs. 2,500 per month, was the subject of compensation calculation. The court applied a multiplier of 17, enhancing the total compensation to Rs. 2,57,000. Additionally, interest rates were specified at 9% per annum on the original amount and 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount.
The liability was divided between the insurers of the tractor and the trailer. The New India Assurance Company, insuring the tractor, was held liable for 75% of the compensation, while the Oriental Insurance Company, insuring the trailer, was responsible for the remaining 25%.
Justice Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao remarked, “Procedural lapses should not deny justice,” underscoring the court’s commitment to rectify oversights that could affect the delivery of justice. He also stated, “The involvement of the offending vehicle itself is sufficient to decide the claim in the application under Section 163A.”
The High Court’s judgment not only enhanced the compensation awarded to the claimants but also reinforced the importance of comprehensive review processes in legal proceedings. By addressing the procedural lapses and ensuring a fair distribution of liability, the court upheld the principles of justice and provided a robust framework for handling similar cases in the future.

Date of Decision: June 18, 2024