[Motor Accident Claim] Can't Enhance Compensation In Appeal By Insurer To Reduce Amount Without Claimant's Intervention: Andhra Pradesh HC
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that in an appeal challenging the amount awarded in a Motor Accident Claim by the insurer, the Court cannot increase the compensation without there being any cross-objection/appeal by the claimants. “The High Court cannot obviously increase the compensation in an appeal by owner/insurer for reducing the compensation, nor can it reduce...
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that in an appeal challenging the amount awarded in a Motor Accident Claim by the insurer, the Court cannot increase the compensation without there being any cross-objection/appeal by the claimants.
“The High Court cannot obviously increase the compensation in an appeal by owner/insurer for reducing the compensation, nor can it reduce the compensation in an appeal by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.”
The order was passed by Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu in an appeal arising out of an order passed by the Motor Vehicles tribunal, preferred by the insurance company against the compensation awarded by the tribunal.
The insurance company claimed that the accident occurred on account of negligence on part of both parties and not solely by the driver of the offending vehicle. It stated that the driver of the claimant's vehicle did not produce his driving license to prove that he was an adept driver. Further, it was contended that the monthly income calculated by the tribunal was incorrect as the deceased was a housewife.
On the other hand, the Respondents/claimants contended that the owner and driver of the offending vehicle had not rebutted the claim of the petitioners and remained ex parte. It was additionally stated that the deceased used to earn money by doing agriculture work and even otherwise, the role of a housewife cannot be deprecated, and should be considered on par with that of an earning member.
Hence, the counsel on behalf of the claimants contended that the compensation awarded was on the lower side and prayed that it may be enhanced appropriately.
It was prayed that the High Court can enhance compensation in an appeal filed by the respondent under Order 41 Rule 33 of the CPC by way of which, an appellant court is permitted to take steps to ensure 'complete justice.'
Before delving into whether the claim amount can be enhanced, the Bench clarified that the duties performed by a housewife cannot be seen as lesser than any earning member of the house.
“The services of the housewife to her family members are also valuable and they have to be fixed looking into the role of the deceased which she was contributing towards her family members.”
Relying upon the 2011 judgement passed by the Apex Court in Ranjana Prakash and others vs. Divisional Manager and another the Court noted:
“It is to be noted that though the powers under Order 41 Rule 33 of the CPC to be exercised by the Appellate Courts are wide enough so as to do justice to the parties, but such powers cannot be invoked to get a larger on higher reliefs.”
The Bench also noted that following this precedent of the Supreme Court, the Andhra Pradesh and Bombay High Courts have also consistently held that compensation cannot be enhanced in an appeal filed by the respondents to reduce the claim amount.
With the said observation, despite acknowledging the importance of the deceased in her capacity as a housewife, the Court refrained from interfering with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
The appeal was dismissed.
MACMA No.81 OF 2020
Counsel for the Appellant: Srinivasa Rao Vutla
Counsel for the Respondent(s): D. Kodandarami Reddy