Andhra Pradesh High Court Lays Down Parameters For Disputing Negligence In Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Cases

A Single Judge Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court comprising Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, while dealing with an appeal contesting the sustainability of an award and decree passed by the Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ongole, laid down certain advisory parameters to be followed in Motor Vehicle Accident claims cases while disputing negligence. The Court directed that in such cases-

1. “There must be denial.
2. There must be some evidence at least by the parties.
3. There must be at least oath against oath and tested by cross-examination.
4. Examination of eye witnesses reflected in charge sheet filed by Police is preferable. However, the same cannot be the thumb role, if the presence of such witnesses examined is probable at the scene of offence, at relevant time.
5. The driver of the offending vehicle, if takes witness stand and denies the negligence, it will have its own importance, at least in cases of contributory negligence.
6. In cases of serious disputes as to planting of either witnesses or vehicles, summoning the investigating officers and eliciting the probabilities or improbabilities will have considerable impact.
7. The rough sketch of scene of offence and Motor Vehicles Inspector Report indicating the damage to the vehicles etc., will have its own effect to vindicate the stand of the parties.
8. However, no stick jacket and standard formula is possible and each matter has to be considered on its own merits and facts and circumstances including the relevant and reliable evidence placed before this Court.
9. Finally the Tribunal shall have holistic view of the matter.“

Background:

On 24.06.2013, an accident occurred when the deceased, Jyothi Marthamma, was struck by an APSRTC bus while crossing the road near her workplace at a brick kiln. The driver of the bus, the fifth respondent, remained ex parte during the proceedings. Following the incident, the claimants, including the deceased's husband, two daughters, and her mother, filed for compensation due to the loss of the deceased. A police case was registered against the bus driver under Sections 338 and 204-A of the Indian Penal Code for causing injuries that ultimately resulted in Jyothi's death.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) found that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. This conclusion was supported by witness testimonies and documentation from the police, which led the tribunal to rule in favour of the claimants regarding the driver's negligence. The MACT awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,62,000/- with interest at 6% per annum and made apportionment Rs.2,37,000/- to the husband and Rs.75,000/- each to the other claimants.

The order of the MACT was appealed before the High Court by the respondent No.2 (The Managing Director, APSRTC) on the grounds that- (i) the MACT overlooked the negligence of the deceased when crossing the road, (ii) the compensation amount was not substantiated by any sound evidence, and (iii) for claimants, it was argued that the rate of interest granted was low, the quantification of compensation done required enhancement, even in the absence of the appeal by the claimants.

To deal with the issue of negligence, the Court not only laid down the parameters mentioned above, but also relied on the case of Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC [(2009) 13 SCC 530], where the Supreme Court acknowledged that claimants might not always be able to provide strict proof regarding the exact cause of the accident or the involvement of a specific vehicle. Instead, they only need to establish their case based on the preponderance of probability rather than proving it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Applying the same principle, the Court observed that, in the present case, there was no material evidence beyond the sole testimony of RW1 to indicate any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Consequently, the Court refused to interfere with the order of the MACT in this regard.

Furthermore, the Court noted that the compensation initially awarded by the MACT was insufficient and warranted enhancement. It relied on, inter alia, the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. E.Suseelamma and others [2023 SCC Online AP 172], where the Supreme Court had reiterated that claimants are entitled to just compensation, and the Court, in its appellate powers, may enhance the award even without an appeal or cross-objection if the compensation appears inadequate.

Upon reviewing the evidence and the circumstances surrounding the case, the Court determined that the claimants were entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 6,22,000/-. This amount included various heads of compensation such as loss of dependency, loss of consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate, etc. Additionally, the interest on the total compensation was enhanced from 6% per annum to 7.5% per annum.

The quantum of compensation was, thus, modified and the appeal was accordingly dismissed.

CASE DETAILS:

CASE NUMBER: M.A.C.M.A. No.1722 of 2016

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10.03.2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order