Reserved on 10.10.2025 Pronounced on 14.11.2025 Uploaded on 21.11.2025 APHC010560312018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3548] FRIDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2079/2018 Between: 1. K S R T C, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE ...APPELLANT AND 1. P SIVA KUMAR, D.NO.13-15, RANGACHARI STREET, NEAR ESWARAGUDI STREET, CHITTOOR TOWN AND DISTRICT, A.P 2. H R LOKESAN, S/O.RAYA GOWDA, DRIVER, AGE 34 YEARS, HALLIGERI VILLAGE, BASARLY HOBLI, MANDHYA TALUK, KARNATAKA STATE. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toAggrieved by the order arid Decree passed in MVO.P.No.124 of 2016 on the Court of the IX Additional District Judge, Cum -Chairman -Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Chittoor dt 09-01-2018 the above named appellant begs to present the above Memorandum of CMA IA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 to 2 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2079 of 2018 condone the delay of 99 days in filing the MACMA against MVO.P.No.124 of 2016 on the Court of the IX Additional District Judge, Cum - Chairman - Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Chittoor dt: 09-01-2018 and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2018 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 to grant Stay of all further proceedings including Execution in MVO.P.No.124 of 2016 on the Court of the IX Additional District Judge, Cum - Chairman - Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Chittoor dt: 09-01-2018 pending disposal of the above MACMA, and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. SREEMANNARAYANA VATTIKUTI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. HEMANTH KUMAR VENNA The Court made the following: 3 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2079 of 2018 JUDGMENT: Heard, Sri Sreemannarayana Vattikuti, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Hemanth Kumar Venna, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and perused the entire material on record. 1. Assailing the Award and Decree, dated 09.01.2018, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge in M.V.O.P.No.124 of 2016, the 2nd respondent in the M.V.O.P. has filed this appeal contending that the Award of compensation is abnormal. 2. The averments and the narration of the parties will be as referred in the present appeal. 3. The contentions of the claimant/2nd respondent herein are that the claimant was aged 32 years and a wholesale vegetable vendor, getting an income of Rs.90,000/- per month. On 05.01.2016, at about 01:15 P.M., while he was travelling as a passenger in the KSRTC bus bearing No.KA 42/F 1762 from Chittoor to Kolar to purchase vegetables, near Sudha Supriya Hotel on Palamaner-Chittoor road, the 1st respondent i.e., the driver of the KSRTC bus drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 03/Z 0134 as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries on his person and fracture to his right hand and was shifted to the Government Hospital, Palamaner through 108 Ambulance. The claimant further averred that he was referred to a private hospital for better treatment and was shifted to Kishore Hospital, Chittoor and thereafter to Billroth Hospital, Chennai for conducting surgery of his right hand on the advice of Dr.Kishore Kumar. There, he has undergone surgery and in pursuance, a steel rod was fixed from shoulder 4 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2079 of 2018 to elbow. Further, he is taking physiotherapy and on account of the injuries, he is unable to lift his right hand and lost his earnings. 4. Crime No.1/2016 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC by the Station House Officer, Palamaner Urban Police Station, against the driver of the crime vehicle-KSRTC bus bearing No.KA 42/F 1762 and after investigation charge sheet was filed. 5. The claimant further stated in the Claim Petition that due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he became permanently disabled person and unable to do any work after the accident and the accident was solely occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus driver and hence both are jointly liable. 6. In oppugnance, the driver filed written statement denying the allegations mentioned as concocted and created for the purpose of the case. He further asserts that the bus was driven in a very cautious and slow manner and it is the mistake of the APSRTC driver, who was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner and that the compensation claimed is very excessive. Collaborating the stance of the driver/1st respondent, the appellant/2nd respondent also filed his adversaries denying the averments that the accident happened was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver/1st respondent and when the bus reached Gunthur, the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 03/Z 0134 applied sudden brakes, without following traffic rules, which indicates the rashness and negligent manner and thereby the driver of the APSRTC bus is liable for the accident and projects that the driver/owner and the insurance company of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 03/Z 0134 are liable and hence are necessary parties and further stated that the petition is to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties and also that the amount of compensation claimed by the claimant is highly excessive. 5 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2079 of 2018 7. Basing on these facts, which surfaced in the Original Petition, the Tribunal framed the following issues: (i) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing No.KA 42/F 1762 or due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSTRC bus bearing No.AP 03/Z 0134 and (ii) To what extent the petitioner is entitled for compensation? 8. The Tribunal, while awarding the compensation, has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties, which is reflected in the Award. The Tribunal was conscious inter alia filtered the evidence meticulously to arrive at the conclusion that the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 03/Z 0134 is not involved and only the driver of the KSRTC bus with bearing No.KA 42/F 1762 is involved. The evidence of the driver of the KSRTC bus explicitly reflects that the KSRTC bus has dashed the APSRTC bus from backside and that the front portion of the KSRTC bus was damaged which engulfs the fact that the driver of the APSRTC bus is not involved and hence this Court finds no fault rather any legal infirmity or incorrectness in the Award passed by the Tribunal and hence regarding the issue No.1, this Court upheld the order passed therein. 9. Regarding awarding of compensation, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the bills adduced as evidence by the claimant and while taking into consideration the multiplier method, the Tribunal rightly taken the age of the injured as 32 and applied the multiplier „16‟ as per the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another1. But, while calculating the compensation amount, the Tribunal has mistakenly multiplied as below: “6000 x 12 x 18 x 54/100 = 6,99,840/-” 1 2009 (3) ALD 83 (SC) 6 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2079 of 2018 10. There is a glaring arithmetical mistake and instead of the multiplier „16‟, the calculation was made by applying the multiplier „18‟, which was derived as Rs.6,99,840/-. But, in fact, the Tribunal applying the multiplier ‟16‟, considering the Sarla Verma‟s case (supra), which should be as follows: “6000 x 12 x 16 x 54/100 = 6,22,080/-” 11. Generally, when mistakes are emanated from the judgments of the Court below, the corrections are rectified as per Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code. This principle is enunciated in the judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Jayalakshmi Coelho v. Oswald Joseph Coelho2, wherein it was held that mistake by a Court ought not to cause a party to suffer and also that whatever be the intention of the Court while passing a decree or order, should be clearly reflected therein, maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit. The mistakes rectified from arithmetical or clerical or accidental in the judgment or decree which may cause prejudice to any party held must be rectified. (emphasis supplied) 12. Regarding the quantum of compensation awarded in view of the injuries on account of the accident, the claimant stated that he used to earn income of Rs.90,000/- per month, which is not supported by any evidence. On the other hand, one M.Raja Sekhar was examined as PW4 who happens to be the President of the Vegetable Market Association, Chittoor, mentioned in his affidavit about the claimant running Vegetable Shop No.260 in the market premises and was earning Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,000/- per day and even in the cross-examination, there was no rebuttal to the evidence adduced regarding the earning of Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,000/- per day. The Tribunal, having taken note of the said affidavit of the President, Vegetable Market Association, ought to have 2 (2001) 4 SCC 181 7 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2079 of 2018 considered the affidavit in a positive manner instead of suspecting the said statement and no reason indicated for disbelieving. 13. The reasoning of the Tribunal is erroneous being contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajwati alias Rajjo and Others vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and Others 3, wherein it was held as follows: “19. Similarly, in the case of Kusum Lata v. Satbir, this Court observed that it is well known that in a case relating to motor accident claims, the claimants are not required to prove the case as it is required to be done in a criminal trial. The Court must keep this distinction in mind. 20. It is well settled that Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial piece of legislation and as such, while dealing with compensation cases, once the actual occurrence of the accident has been established, the Tribunal‟s role would be to award just and fair compensation. As held by this Court in Sunita (Supra) and Kusum Lata (Supra), strict rules of evidence as applicable in a criminal trial, are not applicable in motor accident compensation cases, i.e., to say, “the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases”.” 14. In view of the observations of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, the evidence of PW4 cannot be taken so lightly and the Tribunal should not have taken note in a positive manner and should have considered the claimant‟s earning as Rs.400/- per day, which comes to Rs.12,000/- per month. Considering Rs.6,000/- per month as notional income of the claimant by the Tribunal appears to be a low figure. It is no more cavil of doubt that it is the statutory duty of the Tribunal or the Appellate Court to award reasonable and just compensation. The word „just‟ was elaborately discussed and some meaning need to be attached to the word „just‟ while awarding the compensation and not only on the evidence 3 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1699 8 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2079 of 2018 adduced. The word „just compensation‟ as was then used by Lord Denning is as follows: “No single group of cases comes before the Courts more constantly than the road accidents. They affect the lives of ordinary men and women every day. The law must be practical, simple and directed towards „just compensation‟.” 15. The law of the land is that the compensation when awarded, the entire circumstances need to be taken into consideration and also the social status of the claimant. It is equally settled that there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant. This principle was reiterated in the case of Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza and others vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service 4 , wherein it was observed as follows: “We must follow the legal principles of Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh [(2003) 2 SCC 274] at para 7, wherein with respect to the provisions of the MV Act, this Court has observed as under: (SCC p.279) “7. …there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case, where from the evidence brought on record if the Tribunal/court considers that the claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. The only embargo is – it should be „just‟ compensation, that is to say, it should be neither arbitrary, fanciful or unjustifiable from the evidence. This would be clear by reference to the reference to the relevant provisions of the MV Act. Section 166 provides that an application for compensation arising out of an accident of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both, could be made (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by any agent duly authorized by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be.”” 4 (2013) 16 SCC 719 9 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2079 of 2018 16. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Ranjana Prakash and Others vs. Divisional Manager and Another 5, at paragraph No.7 held as follows: “7. This principle also flows from Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure which enables an appellate court to pass any order which ought to have been passed by the trial court and to make such further or other order as the case may require, even if the respondent had not filed any appeal or cross-objections. This power is entrusted to the appellate court to enable it to do complete justice between the parties. Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code can however be pressed into service to make the award more effective or maintain the award on other grounds or to make the other parties to litigation to share the benefits or the liability, but cannot be invoked to get a larger or higher relief. For example, where the claimants seeks compensation against the owner and the insurer of the vehicle and the Tribunal makes the award only against the owner, on an appeal by the owner challenging the quantum, the appellate court can make the insurer jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, along with the owner, even though the claimants had not challenged the non-grant of relief against the insurer. Be that as it may.” 17. In the case of K.Suresh vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and Another6, the Hon‟ble Apex Court while dealing with the word “just compensation”, at paragraph Nos.8 and 9 held as follows: “8. The conception of “just compensation” is fundamentally concretized on certain well established principles and accepted legal parameters as well as principles of equity and good conscience. In Yadav Kumar v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and another [(1996) 1 QB 273], a two-Judge Bench, while dealing with the facet of “just compensation”, has stated thus: - “It goes without saying that in matters of determination of compensation both the tribunal and the court are statutorily charged with a responsibility of fixing a “just compensation”. It is obviously true that determination of just compensation cannot be equated to a bonanza. At the same time the 5 (2011) 14 SCC 639 6 (2012) 12 SCC 274 10 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2079 of 2018 concept of “just compensation” obviously suggests application of fair and equitable principles and a reasonable approach on the part of the tribunals and the courts. This reasonableness on the part of the tribunal and the court must be on a large peripheral field.” In Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Nirmala Devi [(1979) 4 SCC 365], this Court has expressed thus: (SCC p. 366, para 2) “2. … the determination of the quantum must be liberal, not niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free country in generous scales.” 9. In Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC [(1999) 1 SCC 90], while dealing with the concept of “just compensation”, it has been ruled that: (SCC p. 108, para 28) “28. … The word „just‟, as its nomenclature denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness having a large peripheral field. The largeness is, of course, not arbitrary; it is restricted by the conscience which is fair, reasonable and equitable, if it exceeds; it is termed as unfair, unreasonable, unequitable, not just.” The field of wider discretion of the Tribunal has to be within the said limitations. It is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which in turn appears to be “just and reasonable”, for compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales as has been stated in State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur [(2003) 7 SCC 484].” 18. Following the above verdicts of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and if this Court takes notional income as Rs.12,000/- per month in respect of the claimant who was a Vegetable Vendor, the same would be reasonable and justifiable according to the living conditions as on today. It is a settled law through the legion of judgments of the Hon‟ble Apex Court that the law must be applied according to the circumstances prevailing as on the date and not on mere assumptions. The compensation in the motor accident case is not adversarial litigation. Having found that the compensation awarded to the claimant is at a lesser figure and in consonance with the ratio laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, this Court is enhancing the compensation which is awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Award and Decree passed by the Tribunal is modified, enhancing the compensation granted to the claimant from Rs.6,99,840/- to Rs.12,44,160/- (12000 x 12 x 16 x 54/100) towards pain and suffering, loss of income and loss of earnings. 11 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2079 of 2018 19. In regard to the other part of the Award, granting compensation under the heads of transportation etc., this Court is of the firm opinion that the Award needs no interference. Therefore, the total compensation would come to Rs.13,67,089/- (12,44,160 + 5,000 + 10,000 + 1,07,929). 20. In view of the above stated facts and circumstances, the Award and Decree, dated 09.01.2018, passed by the Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.124 of 2016 is modified to the extent indicated above. The appellant and 2nd respondent herein are directed to deposit the aforesaid enhanced amount as indicated above, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, along with simple interest @ 7.5% per annum, as observed in Tamilnadu Transport Corporation Limited vs. Raja Priya 7 , after deducting the amount, if any, deposited earlier. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the said amount. 21. In the result, the Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, modifying the Award to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. 22. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J Date : 14-11-2025 Note : L.R. copy to be marked B/o BMS 7 2005 (4) ALT 14 SC 12 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2079 of 2018 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI *THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA +MOTOR ACCIDENTS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2079 of 2018 Between: # KSRTC ...PETITIONER AND $ P. Siva Kumar and Another ...RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 14.11.2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? Yes/No 2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No 3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No _____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA 13 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2079 of 2018 * THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA + MOTOR ACCIDENTS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2079 of 2018 % 14.11.2025 # Between: # KSRTC ...PETITIONER AND $ P. Siva Kumar and Another ...RESPONDENTS ! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Sreemannarayana Vattikuti ! Counsel for Respondents: Sri Hemanth Kumar Venna <Gist : >Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1. 2009 (3) ALD 83 (SC) 2. (2001) 4 SCC 181 3. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1699 4. (2013) 16 SCC 719 5. (2011) 14 SCC 639 6. (2012) 12 SCC 274 7. 2005 (4) ALT 14 SC