Andhra Pradesh HC Enhances Motor Accident Compensation to Rs 10.06 Lakh Despite No Cross-Appeal by Claimants

The Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati enhanced MACT compensation from Rs 7.28 lakh to Rs 10.06 lakh, adding future prospects and conventional heads even though claimants had not filed a cross-appeal against the original award.

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, in an appeal filed by the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award, dismissed the corporation’s challenge but simultaneously enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants from Rs 7,28,000 to Rs 10,06,000. Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, sitting singly, held that an appellate court is not barred from awarding just compensation exceeding the MACT figure even when the claimants have not filed a cross-appeal or cross-objections. The judgment, pronounced on 25 June 2026, applies future prospects, filial consortium, and revised conventional heads to arrive at the enhanced figure, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the original petition.

The Accident and the Claimants Before the MACT

On 30 March 2008, Vadde Rajagopal, aged 27, was riding his motorcycle bearing No. AP 16 AH 6938 on the Kurnool–Kodumur Road near K. Nagalapuram Village. An APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 10 Z 9834, driven by its employee, struck him. A criminal case in Crime No. 17 of 2008 was registered under Section 304-A IPC and the driver was charge-sheeted in C.C. No. 409 of 2008 before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool.

Rajagopal was working as a Credit Officer with Spandana Sphoorty Financial Limited, Allagadda Branch, earning Rs 8,066 per month. His father (Vadde Durganna) and two minor sisters filed M.V.O.P. No. 95 of 2008 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Kurnool District at Adoni, claiming Rs 8,58,968. The mother and two other sisters of the deceased, who had also originally been applicants, died by suicide following the accident; only the father and the two minor sisters prosecuted the claim.

The MACT, by its award and decree dated 5 November 2012, awarded Rs 7,28,000 — Rs 7,20,000 towards loss of dependency and Rs 8,000 towards transportation and funeral charges. The tribunal accepted a notional monthly income of Rs 5,000 (annual Rs 60,000), deducted one-third for personal expenses, and applied multiplier 18 corresponding to the deceased’s age of 27 years. No amount was awarded under loss of estate, loss of consortium, or filial consortium.

APSRTC’s Challenge and the Claimants’ Position

APSRTC, as Respondent No. 2 before the MACT and the appellant before the High Court, filed M.A.C.M.A. No. 1424 of 2014 under Order 41 of the CPC. The corporation raised three contentions: that the deceased’s own negligence in riding the motorcycle was ignored; that the income figure lacked sufficient basis; and that the father and sisters of the deceased, not being a spouse or children, had no compensable loss of dependency.

The claimants, who had not filed any cross-appeal, argued that the compensation required enhancement and that the appeal deserved dismissal.

Negligence: Crime Record and Eye-Witness Evidence Decisive

Justice Sarma noted that APSRTC examined no witnesses before the MACT. The crime record, the FIR (Ex. A1), the charge sheet (Ex. A2), and the post-mortem certificate (Ex. A3) all pointed against the bus driver. P.W. 2, an eye-witness, confirmed the driver’s negligence and denied any negligence on the part of the deceased. P.W. 3, who attended the inquest, corroborated the record.

The court drew on the Supreme Court’s observations in Bimla Devi and Others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, (2009) 13 SCC 530, that claimants need only establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and that strict proof of the exact manner of an accident may not always be possible. Applying that standard, the High Court found no ground to interfere with the MACT’s finding on negligence and rejected the contributory negligence argument.

Income, Future Prospects, and the Multiplier

The MACT had notionally fixed income at Rs 5,000 per month, though the claimants had claimed Rs 8,066. Exs. A4 and A5 — a pay slip/salary certificate and an identity card — indicated the deceased’s employment, but P.W. 4, examined to prove those documents, admitted they bore the Divisional Manager’s signatures rather than his own. The MACT therefore took a conservative figure.

The High Court accepted the notional income of Rs 5,000 per month as the base but held that addition of future prospects was permissible. Relying on National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, which directs addition of 40% for self-employed or those in non-permanent employment below 40 years, the court applied 30% — a figure it described as “at least” appropriate given the deceased’s age — raising the monthly income to Rs 6,500 and the annual figure to Rs 78,000. After deducting one-third for personal expenses, the multiplicand came to Rs 52,000 per annum. Multiplier 18, corresponding to age 27 as per Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, was retained without modification. Loss of dependency was thus recalculated at Rs 9,36,000.

Conventional Heads: Consortium, Estate, and Funeral Expenses

The MACT had awarded only Rs 8,000 towards funeral and transportation charges and nothing under loss of estate or consortium. The High Court revised all three heads in line with Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130.

Under Magma, the Supreme Court had held that consortium compensation is not confined to spouses and extends to parents and children under the heads of filial and parental consortium. Applying that principle, the court awarded Rs 40,000 as filial consortium to Claimant No. 1, the father of the deceased. Rs 15,000 was awarded towards loss of estate and Rs 15,000 towards funeral expenditure, replacing the earlier Rs 8,000.

Power to Enhance Without a Cross-Appeal

A central question was whether the High Court could enhance compensation when the claimants had not filed a cross-appeal or cross-objections under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The court addressed this directly, citing a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. E. Suseelamma and Others, M.A.C.M.A. No. 945 of 2013, and the Supreme Court’s judgment in Surekha and Others v. Santosh and Others, (2021) 16 SCC 467.

In Surekha, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court had observed that “the Court should not take hyper technical approach and ensure that just compensation is awarded to the affected person or the claimants.” That observation was made precisely in the context of a High Court that had declined enhancement because the claimants had not filed a cross-appeal. The Andhra Pradesh High Court treated those observations as directly applicable.

The court also referred to the Supreme Court’s decisions in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and Others, (2003) 2 SCC 274, Kajal v. Jagadish Chand and Ors., (2020) 4 SCC 413, and Ramla and Others v. National Insurance Company Limited and Others, (2019) 2 SCC 192, all of which confirm that there is no bar to awarding compensation exceeding the amount claimed when the claimants are otherwise entitled to it.

Outcome

The appeal filed by APSRTC was dismissed. The award and decree dated 5 November 2012 passed by the MACT in M.V.O.P. No. 95 of 2008 was modified. The total compensation was enhanced from Rs 7,28,000 to Rs 10,06,000, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition before the MACT until realisation. The enhanced compensation is to be apportioned equally among all three claimants.

The court directed that if the claimants furnish their bank account details within 15 days, APSRTC shall deposit the amount directly into those accounts and file proof before the MACT. If the claimants fail to do so, APSRTC shall deposit the amount before the MACT, from which the claimants may withdraw it immediately. APSRTC was given two months to pay or deposit the balance. The claimants were directed to pay court fee on the enhanced portion before the MACT. No order as to costs was made in the appeal.