Claimants Cannot Be Left Out of Pocket When APSRTC Withdraws Its Own Appeal, Rules Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed an APSRTC motor accident appeal as withdrawn but awarded costs with 6% interest to claimants forced to appear before the Court.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has settled a procedural question that arises with some frequency in motor accident appellate proceedings: can claimants insist that an appeal be decided on merits when the appellant itself seeks to withdraw? Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, sitting singly at Amaravati, answered that question in the negative — but directed that the withdrawal come at a cost. The appellant, the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), had challenged a Chittoor Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award of Rs. 4,79,194 against a claim of Rs. 4,00,000. When APSRTC sought to withdraw its own appeal in M.A.C.M.A. No. 751 of 2014, claimants resisted, arguing the Court was bound to examine whether the compensation was just and adequate. The Court dismissed that objection but awarded costs of Rs. 5,000 with interest at 6% per annum to the claimants.

The Appeal Before the Court

The underlying proceedings arose from M.V.O.P. No. 142 of 2008 before the District Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chittoor. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 4,79,194 to the claimants — the widow, three minor children, and mother of the deceased — by judgment and decree dated 3 July 2012. The award exceeded the amount originally claimed.

APSRTC filed M.A.C.M.A. No. 751 of 2014, questioning both the liability and the quantum of compensation. Two interlocutory applications were also filed: one seeking condonation of a 30-day delay in filing the appeal, and another seeking a stay of execution of the Tribunal's decree and judgment. The claimants engaged counsel and appeared before the High Court.

When the matter came up for hearing, counsel for APSRTC stated that the corporation wished to withdraw the appeal. Counsel for the claimants objected, contending that an appellate court hearing a Section 173 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 appeal has an independent power to examine the adequacy of compensation, even in the absence of any appeal or cross-objection by the claimants.

Whether Claimants Can Compel Disposal on Merits

The central legal issue framed by the Court was whether the claimants could prevent the appellant from withdrawing its own appeal and insist upon a merits-based disposal.

The Court located its analysis in the scheme of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which governs appellate procedure. Order 41 Rule 16 gives the appellant the right to be heard in support of the appeal; the Court hears the respondent only if the appeal is not dismissed at that stage. Order 41 Rule 17 addresses the consequences of a defaulting appellant — dismissal, without a decision on merits — and allows ex parte proceedings where the respondent is absent.

From this scheme, Justice Haranadha Sarma drew a clear principle: the respondents are entitled to be heard when the appellant is present and the proceedings continue, but they cannot insist on a merits disposal when the appellant is not pressing the appeal. The Motor Vehicles Act does not contain specific procedural provisions that would override Order 41 of the CPC on this point.

The Court acknowledged that there are precedents permitting enhancement of compensation even in the absence of an appeal by claimants. It referred to the Supreme Court decision in Surekha and Others v. Santosh and Others (2021) 16 SCC 467 and the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. E. Suseelamma and Others 2023 SCC Online AP 1725. However, Justice Haranadha Sarma held that those principles could not be invoked in the present circumstances because the appellant institution had chosen, in its own wisdom, to withdraw the appeal entirely. Without a live appeal being pressed, there was no basis for the Court to re-examine the Tribunal award of its own motion.

The Court also pointed to the claimants' own procedural choices. They had not filed any cross-objections under Order 41 or a cross-appeal. The suggestion that they would pay court fee on an enhanced portion of the compensation only if enhancement were ordered did not find favour. The Court observed that what prevented the respondents from filing cross-objections or a cross-appeal was not known, and in their absence, the objection to withdrawal was not tenable.

Costs and Interest on Costs

While rejecting the claimants' substantive objection, the Court turned to whether the withdrawal could be permitted without any consequence for the claimants. APSRTC had filed the appeal, required the claimants to engage counsel, and made them appear before the High Court. Simple withdrawal, without any recompense, was held to be unacceptable.

The Court awarded costs of Rs. 5,000 in favour of the claimants. It then considered whether interest could also be awarded on those costs, a question that required separate examination.

Section 34 of the CPC provides that where a decree is for payment of money, the Court may order interest at a rate it deems just on the sum adjudged. The Court reasoned that a costs component, once fixed, becomes a sum adjudged and is therefore eligible for interest under that provision.

For support, the Court drew on a Calcutta High Court decision in Janaki Nath Roy, Narendra Nath Roy & Co. Ltd. (in liquidation) v. Sambhu Nath Mullick and Others AIR 1971 Cal 504, which had considered the practice of awarding interest on costs. That court found that interest on costs, not exceeding 6% per annum, could be allowed provided the judgment itself specified the rate. Justice Haranadha Sarma applied that approach: interest at 6% per annum was awarded on the Rs. 5,000 costs, running from the date of the claimants' first appearance in the appeal proceedings.

Order

The appeal in M.A.C.M.A. No. 751 of 2014 was dismissed as withdrawn, subject to the following directions:

APSRTC was directed to pay Rs. 5,000 as costs, together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claimants' appearance in the appeal until the date of actual deposit. The full amount was to be deposited within one month from 13 March 2026.

The Court gave a two-step mechanism for disbursal. If claimant No. 1, the widow of the deceased, furnishes her bank account number within 15 days, APSRTC is to deposit the amount directly into that account. If that step is not completed in time, APSRTC is to deposit the amount before the learned MACT at Chittoor, whereupon claimant No. 1 will be entitled to withdraw it immediately.

Any miscellaneous petitions pending in the appeal, including the two interlocutory applications, were closed as a sequel to the disposal of the main appeal.