Passenger's Failure To Take Precaution Subordinate To Public Bus Operator's Duty Of Care: AP High Court Enhances Accident Compensation

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that a public transport operator's duty of care outweighs a passenger's failure to exercise caution. [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 131]

It thus enhanced the compensation payable to the family of a man who died after being run over by an APSRTC bus— from Rs. 3.85 lakh to Rs. 8.40 lakh.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma dismissed APSRTC's appeal against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and allowed the claimants' appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

Observing that the duty of care cast upon a public transport operator is greater than the obligation on passengers to protect themselves, the Court held:

"This is not a case of hypothesis. It is a simple case of foreseeability and the ability to visualize certain things which a person engaged in trade can easily imagine. Therefore, in the context of the case, substantial duty lies on the part of the institution rather than the victim

As observed above, 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. The respondent had every duty to take all the precautions and the driver also had a reasonable duty to prevent the mishap.

When the comparative breach is examined between the deceased and the respondents, the lapse, if any on the part of the deceased is found to be trivial and negligible, whereas the breach on the part of the respondents is found to be substantial, amounting to breach of the duty constituting negligence, since they are engaged in trade and commerce. In view of the above reasoning, the findings of the learned MACT with regard to negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle are accepted."

The appeals arose from an accident in 2009 at the Nellore-Atmakur Bus Stand. The deceased, while returning from Tirumala with his family, attempted to reserve a seat by placing a kerchief through the bus window. Before he could board, the driver started the bus without noticing the passengers, causing him to fall beneath the rear wheel and sustain fatal injuries.

Following the accident, the deceased's wife, two minor children and mother filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) seeking compensation. The Tribunal held APSRTC liable and awarded them Rs. 3.85 lakh.

Aggrieved by the award, APSRTC filed an appeal before the High Court contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and, therefore, the claimants were not entitled to compensation.

The claimants, on the other hand, filed a separate appeal seeking enhancement of compensation, arguing that the Tribunal had underestimated the deceased's income and awarded inadequate compensation under various heads.

The High Court observed that reserving seats through bus windows by placing kerchiefs, towels or bags was a common social practice, particularly in 2009, and that bus operators were expected to anticipate such conduct. It held that bus operators were under a legal duty to regulate passenger movement, provide safe boarding arrangements and ensure that buses were moved only after taking adequate precautions.

Emphasising that criminal culpability and tortious liability operate on different standards, the Court observed that “while criminal liability may permit the benefit of doubt, compensation claims are decided on the principle of probabilities”.

On the evidence, the Court found that although the deceased could have avoided the accident by not attempting to reserve the seat through the window, the driver had the last opportunity to prevent the mishap as the deceased was on the driver's side and visible through the rear-view mirror. It also observed that the management's failure to regulate passenger movement at the bus stand contributed to the accident.

On the question of compensation, the Court reassessed the deceased's monthly income at Rs. 5,000, added 25% towards future prospects, applied the multiplier of 13 and awarded ₹6.50 lakh towards loss of dependency. It also granted Rs. 40,000 each towards consortium to all four claimants and enhanced the amounts awarded under the conventional heads, increasing the total compensation to Rs. 8.40 lakh with interest at 7.5% per annum.

The Court further held that once the respondents themselves invited adjudication on negligence, the claim need not be confined to the compensation caps under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Reiterating that the Act is a beneficial welfare legislation, it observed that there is no bar to awarding compensation higher than the amount claimed if the claimant is otherwise entitled to just compensation.

Case Title: Vice Chairman-Managing Director, APSRTC & Anr. v. Mamidi Padmavathi & Ors. connected with Mamidi Padmavathi & Ors. v. APSRTC & Anr.

Case Nos.: M.A.C.M.A. Nos. 3084 of 2012 and 943 of 2014

Counsel for the Appellants (Claimants): Madhava Rao Nalluri

Counsel for the Respondents (APSRTC): K. Sarala Reddy (Standing Counsel for APSRTC) and Aravala Rama Rao (Standing Counsel for APSRTC)

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 131