4'" APHC010608522003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY.THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2282 OF 2003 Between: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Visakhapatnam Rep. by its Regional Manager, 4'^ Floor, Dwarakanagar Bus Station Complex, Visakhapatnam. ...Appellant/Petitioner AND 1. Sri A Sanjeeva Rao, S/o. A. Mallayya, R/o. Quarter No.32-D, P.Narsapur Mandal, Manchiryala, Adilabad District. 2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Visakhapatnam, Rep. by its Branch Manager, O/o. Chitralaya Theatre, Suryabagh, Visakhapatnam-20. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: SRI. GUDI SRINIVASU Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree in MOP. NO. 898 of 1999, dt. 22-10-2002, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-lll District Judge, Visakhapatnam. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and material papers in the Suit and upon the hearing arguments of Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, ' sc for APSRTC, Advocate for the Appellant, Sri Gudi Srinivasu, for Respondent No.2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1. That the CMA be and hereby allowed- in-part. That the award and decree dated 22-10-2002, in M.O.P. No. 898 of 1999, on the file of the Court of Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-lll District Judge, Visakhapatnam be and is hereby set aside. That the amount of compensation payable by the respondent No. 1 be and hereby raised from Rs. 3,496/- to Rs. 53,956/-. That the respondent No. 2 be and hereby jointly and severally liable with respondent No. 1 to the extent of Rs. 6000/- only. That the interest at the rate of 9% p.a. awarded by the Tribunal and the costs be and hereby paid as per liability of the respondents. That the balance amount be and hereby paid within one month from the date of judgment. That the amount already paid, if any, as per the award passed by the Tribunal be and hereby adjusted against the principal, interest and costs due as on the date of such payment. That the respondents do pay Rs.119/-, towards throughout costs. MEMORANDUM OF THROUGHOUT COSTS 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. CMA No.2282 OF 2003 COSTS AT TRIAL COURT- NIL COSTS AT HIGH COURT- Ps. Rs. Stamps for Vakalatnama Stamps used for the Memo Stamps for Judgment of the Lower Court 00 05 00 10 00 01 i I Stamps for decree of Lower Court Value of Copy Stamp paper used for enclosures(17X2) Advocate’s fee on Rupees (not certified) Batta and Postage (25 X 2) Translation and Printing charge 02 00 34 00 50 00 17 Total 119 00 Sd/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-lll Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. Two CD Copies. 2. LRV vna r *' * HIGH COURT DATED: 14/08/2025 15 SEP 2025 . Current Section ^'^5Ss£^SPATCU^St??^ DECREE 0\' m; CWIA NO. 2282 OF 2003 PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT APHC010608522003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST;i TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2282 OF 2003 Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree in MOP. NO. 898 of 1999, dt. 22-10-2002, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-lll District Judge, Visakhapatnam. Between: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Visakhapatnam, Rep. by its Regional Manager, 4''^ Floor, Dwarakanagar Bus Station Complex, Visakhapatnam. ...Appellant/Petitioner AND 1. Sri A Sanjeeva Rao, S/o. A. Mallayya, R/o. Quarter No.32-D, P.Narsapur Mandal, Manchiryala, Adilabad District. 2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Visakhapatnam Rep. by its Branch Manager, O/o. Chitralaya Theatre, Suryabagh, Visakhapatnam-20. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: SRI GUDI SRINIVASU The Court made the following: f f APHC010608522003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Thursday, the Fourteenth Day of August Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable MsJustice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 2282 of 2003 Between; ...Appellant A.P.S.R.T.C., Visakhapatnam. and ...Respondents Sri.A.Sanjeeva Rao and others Counsel for the appellant: 1 .Vinod Kumar Tarlada (S.C. for A.P.S.R.T.C.) Counsel for the respondents: 1. Gudi Srinivasu The Court made the following: f 1' S'*' 2 BSB, J C.M.A.No.2282 of 2003 Judgment: 1. This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the order and decree dated 22.10.2002, in M.O.P.No.898 of 1999, on the file of the Court of Chairman Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal-Cum-lll Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. The appellant is the claimant and the respondents No.1 and 2 are the respondents No.1 and 2 before the Tribunal. 2. Since an accident occurred on 20.09.1995 by collision of a R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP 9Z 7772 hit by a lorry bearing No. AP R 2754 of the respondent No.1, a claim petition was filed seeking compensation of Rs.53,956/- towards cost of damages, including labour and material charges of Rs.3,496/- and loss of earnings of Rs.50,460/- for 20 days during which the bus was detained for repairs. The respondent No.1 who is the owner of the lorry, remained ex-parte. The respondent No.2 that is the insurer of the lorry contested the claim. 3. The Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to award damages that were too remote, relying on a decision of this High Court in Konala Maniyya Vs. V.K.Sambasiva Rao and othersV The Tribunal awarded compensation of only Rs.3,496/- towards expenses for repairs. Aggrieved by the award, this appeal was filed contending that the Tribunal ought to have additionally awarded compensation of Rs.50,460/- towards the loss of earnings as the average daily income was Rs.2,500/-, and that the liability of insurance company is erroneously fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.6,000/- under the Act policy. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal is in error in holding that loss of earning caused due to detention of the bus for repairs is remote to the cause of the accident. He further submitted that the , 4. 5. 6. ^2001 ACJ 112 3 BSB, J C.M.A.No.2282 of 2003 Tribunal ought to have awarded the whole amount of loss of earnings as sought by the claimant and make the insurance company also liable for amount of Rs.6,000/- and directed the insurance company to first pay to the claimant the whole amount of compensation and recover the amount above Rs.6,000/- from the owner. Therefore, he prayed to allow the appeal accordingly. an • 7. The notice sent to the respondent No.1 to the address as given before the Tribunal was returned unserved. Since the respondent No.1 remained exparte before the Tribunal, further notice was dispensed with. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation and fixed the liability and that the award does not require interference. In this regard, he further submitted that insurance company is not liable for consequential damages / loss and therefore, it is not liable for their loss of earnings. It is also submitted that the vehicle could have been made to ply immediately by attending repair and therefore, the period of 20 days is too long or they could have engaged another bus or hire to avoid loss. 8. • 9. In reply, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the bus was repaired within the shortest possible time as there would be many other repairs to be attended in the depot, other than the bus in the present case. He further submitted that a bus cannot be taken on hire immediately and that the loss of earnings caused is not remote and the insurance company is liable to consequential loss also as it is an immediate damage. It is erroneous to hold that the loss of earnings resulted from keeping the bus idle due to repairs required on account of the damage caused to the vehicle in the accident is remote. Therefore, the Tribunal is erroneous in holding that such damages cannot be compensated. The argument of the respondent No.2 that it is not liable for consequential loss is not tenable since it is liable to indemnify the insured for all such compensation payable by the 10. 4 BSB, J C.M.A.No.2282of 2003 insured. When the loss is immediate result of the accident, just by naming it as consequential, liability cannot be avoided, so long as the consequence is immediate but not remote. In the present case, the loss of earnings due to time taken for repairs is not result of remote consequence and the Tribunal ought to have awarded the amount of compensation for loss of earnings as well. Insofar as the quantum of loss of earnings is concerned, the claimant examined P.W3 and filed Ex.A.4 containing 5 S.Rs. of the subject bus relating to the period from 10.09.1995 to 15.09.1995 and Ex.A.6 certificate issued by Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) showing that the bus was in the garage at Visakhapatnam for 20 days for repairs. The argument that the claimant could have hired another bus to meet the loss is not acceptable as hiring a bus requires some procedure which by itself takes time. In view of the evidence placed about the probable average daily loss during the period of repairs to the bus, the compensation can be awarded as claimed. Thus, the respondent No.1 is liable to pay compensation of Rs.50,460/- as well. However, since the policy issued by the respondent No.2 is an Act policy and its liability is limited to Rs.6,000/-, the respondent No.2 is liable to pay Rs.6,000/-. It cannot be directed to pay any further amount and realize the same, because it is not liable at all beyond the limit. 11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed with the costs throughout and the award and decree dated 22.10.2002, in M.O.P.No.898 of 1999, on the file of the Court of Chairman Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal-Cum-lll Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam are set aside and amount of compensation payable by the respondent No.1 is raised from Rs.3,496/- to Rs.53,956/- and the respondent No.2 shall be jointly and severally liable with the respondent No.1 to the extent of Rs.6,000/- only. The interest at the rate of 9% p.a. awarded by the Tribunal shall and the costs be paid as per the liability of the respondents. The balance amount shall be paid within one (1) month from the 12. 5 BSBJ C.M.A.No.2282 of 2003 date of judgment. The amount already paid, if any, as per the award passed by the Tribunal shall be adjusted against the principal, interest and costs due as on the date of such payment. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal shall stand closed. Sd/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-lll District Judge Visakhapatnam. (With records) One CC to Sri. Vinod Kumar Tarlada (SC For APSRTC) [OPUC] One CC to Sri. Gudi Srinivasu, Advocate [OPUC] The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of Andhra Amaravathi. Two CD Copies. 2. 3. 4. Pradesh, 5. LRV vna HIGH COURT DATED:14/08/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE CMA NO. 2282 OF 2003 PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT