High Court affirms driver’s negligence but raises compensation to Rs.8.40 lakh; directs APSRTC to pay with reduced interest

A single-judge bench of Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma heard appeals arising from the award dated 19.06.2012 in M.V.O.P. No.491 of 2009 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ongole. The appeals—M.A.C.M.A. Nos. 3084 of 2012 (by APSRTC) and 943 of 2014 (by the claimants)—challenged the tribunal’s finding on liability and sought review of the quantum of compensation awarded for the death of Mamidi Satyanarayana.

The High Court dismissed the appeal by the State Road Transport Corporation and allowed the claimants’ appeal to enhance compensation. The court accepted the tribunal’s finding that the bus driver was negligent but held that the deceased bore a trivial share of contributory negligence; overall liability rested with the respondents. The Court modified the award from Rs.3,85,000 to Rs.8,40,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition until realization, apportioned sums to the wife, children and mother, and directed deposit within two months with mechanisms for bank transfer or deposit before the MACT. The Court stated that where the respondents invited examination of negligence, the caps under Section 163-A need not rigidly apply and the compensation regime under Section 166 and Supreme Court precedents could be adopted. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Claimant invoking Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act need not plead or prove negligence, but at the instance of either tortfeasor or their indemnifier, the Court if proceeds to examine negligence and apply the fault theory in appropriate cases, the cap under Section 163-A need not be followed and the tortfeasor or their indemnifier, having invited examination of negligence which is contemplated under Section 166, cannot ask the claimant to be confined to the cap under Section 163-A.” The judge also recorded that “the lapse, if any, on the part of the deceased is only with regard to taking precaution. But there is failure of duty on the part of the respondents.”

Background The deceased, aged 47, sustained fatal injuries on 13.07.2009 at Nellore-Atmakur Bus Stand when a state-run bus moved while he attempted to reserve a seat by placing a kerchief or luggage through the window; the rear tyre ran over his head. A criminal case and charge-sheet were filed against the driver. The claimants invoked the Motor Vehicles Act, initially treated by the tribunal under Section 163-A and Section 166 issues, and sought compensation for loss of dependency, consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate. The MACT credited claimant evidence, held the owners liable and awarded Rs.3,85,000 (loss of dependency fixed at Rs.3,64,000).

APSRTC appealed contending contributory negligence by the deceased, lower income assessment and erroneous multiplier; claimants sought enhancement. The High Court analysed statutory rules, II Schedule caps under Section 163-A, and Supreme Court precedents including Sarla Verma, Pranay Sethi and Kurvan Ansari, noting the II Schedule became outdated and that courts must award “just” compensation. The court accepted a higher monthly income at Rs.5,000 with 25% future prospects (effective Rs.6,250), applied a 1/3 deduction for personal expenses, adopted multiplier 13 for age 47 and quantified loss of dependency at Rs.6,50,000. It added conventional heads (Rs.40,000 each for consortium to four claimants as apportioned, Rs.15,000 funeral, Rs.15,000 loss of estate) culminating in Rs.8,40,000. Interest was moderated to 7.5% per annum. The Court directed that claimants pay court fee on the enhanced portion, ordered payment within two months, allowed direct bank transfer if account details furnished within 15 days, or deposit before MACT for withdrawal by claimants. The appeal by APSRTC stood dismissed and the claimants’ appeal was allowed to the extent above; miscellaneous petitions stood closed.

Case Details: Case No.: M.A.C.M.A. Nos. 3084 of 2012 & 943 of 2014 NeutralCitation: 2026:APHC:18398 Case Title: M.A.C.M.A. Nos. 3084 of 2012 & 943 of 2014 Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Aravala Rama Rao (Senior Counsel for APSRTC) For the Respondent(s): Madhava Rao Nalluri; K. Sarala Reddy (Senior Counsel for APSRTC)