Motor Accident Appeal Can Be Withdrawn; Claimants Can't Seek Enhancement Of Compensation Without Cross-Appeal: AP High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that while an appellant is ordinarily entitled to unconditionally withdraw an appeal under the CPC in a motor accident case, respondent party cannot insist that the appellate court decide the matter on merits in the absence of a cross-appeal or cross-objections. [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 134]

At the same time, the Court held that where the appeal compelled the claimants to appear before the court, they are entitled to costs with interest.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma permitted APSRTC to withdraw its appeal challenging a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) award, but directed it to pay costs of Rs.5,000 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claimants' appearance before the High Court till deposit.

Observing that respondents cannot compel adjudication on merits when they themselves have not challenged the award, the Court held:

"Now, when the appellant is not pressing the appeal and is not insisting upon disposal on merits, the respondents cannot insist for disposal or dismissal of the appeal on merits.

What prevented the respondents from filing cross-objections or a crossappeal is not known. In the absence of cross-objections or cross appeal, the submission that in the event of enhancing the compensation, the respondent(s) will pay Court fee for the enhanced part of the compensation is not sounding fair or logical."

The appeal arose from an award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal had awarded compensation of Rs. 4,79,194 to the legal heirs of the deceased against a claim of Rs. 4 lakh. Aggrieved, APSRTC filed an appeal before the High Court challenging both its liability and the quantum of compensation.

When the appeal came up for hearing, APSRTC sought to unconditionally withdraw it.

The claimants opposed the request, contending that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial social welfare legislation and that once the matter reached the appellate court, it was duty-bound to examine whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and adequate, even though the claimants had not filed any appeal or cross-objections.

Examining the issue, the High Court referred to Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure and observed that although an appeal is a continuation of the suit and respondents are entitled to be heard if the appeal is prosecuted, they cannot insist on a decision on merits once the appellant chooses not to press the appeal.

The Court acknowledged that there are precedents permitting enhancement of compensation even in the absence of an appeal by the claimants. However, it held that those principles could not be invoked where the appellant itself chose to withdraw the appeal before adjudication. It observed that if the claimants intended to seek enhancement, they ought to have filed cross-objections or a separate appeal.

Nevertheless, the Court held that APSRTC could not withdraw the appeal without compensating the claimants, who had been compelled to appear before the High Court.

Observing that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial social welfare legislation, it dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to APSRTC paying costs of Rs. 5,000 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claimants' appearance until deposit, directing the amount to be deposited within one month.

Case Title: APSRTC v. Smt. P. Jyothi Chittoor & Ors.

Case No.: M.A.C.M.A. No. 751 of 2014

Counsel for the Appellant: Aravala Rama Rao (Standing Counsel for APSRTC)

Counsel for the Respondents: Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 134