Writ Courts Can Enhance Compensation In Motor Accident Cases Even In Absence Of Appeal Or Cross-Objection By Claimants: Andhra Pradesh HC

While hearing an appeal filed by the insurance company challenging the award passed by the MACT, the Andhra Pradesh High Court clarified that it can enhance the amount of compensation even in the absence of appeal or cross-objection by the claimants in the motor accident cases.

“If on the face of the award or even in the light of the evidence on record, and keeping in view the settled legal position regarding the claimants being entitled to just compensation and it also being the statutory duty of the Court/Tribunal to award just compensation, this Court in the exercise of the appellate powers can enhance the amount of compensation even in the absence of appeal or cross-objection by the claimants," added the Court.

The Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Dr. K. Manmadha Rao observed that “There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that there was any failure on the part of the Maruti Car driver to take any particular care or that he had breached his duty in any manner. In this respect, the appellant Insurance Company has failed to discharge its burden to prove the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased driver of the Maruti Car”.

Advocate N. Rama Krishna appeared for the Petitioner, whereas Advocate S.V. Muni Reddy appeared for the Respondent.

The brief facts of the case were that an accident had occurred between a car and a Gas Tanker lorry, which caused the death of the driver and a passenger in the car. On being approached, the MACT held that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver and thereby directed the National Insurance Company to pay compensation on behalf of the Lorry driver to the claimants. The National Insurance Company challenged this award contending that the accident had occurred due to negligence on part of the driver of the car.

After considering the submission, the Bench observed that for doing justice and to award just compensation, the provisions of Order 41 Rule 33 are to be invoked.

“There is no legal interdict or a prohibition under law, rather the mandate of law is to award just compensation. There is also no prejudice being caused to a person not a party before the Court”, added the Bench.

The Bench also noted that there was no contributory negligence on part of the driver of the car and the sole testimony of the driver of the lorry tanker could not be considered for accepting the plea of contributory negligence.

The Bench also found that there were two eye-witnesses to the accident, and both of them narrated the same story that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving on part of the lorry driver.

Accordingly, while enhancing the compensation, the High Court concluded that to the appeal under Section 173 of the MV Act to the High Court, in the absence of a different procedure having been provided, either under the MV Act or the APMV Rules 1989, and the applicability of Order 41 CPC also not having been excluded, the normal rules which apply to appeals before High Court, are applicable.

Cause Title: National Insurance Company v. E. Suselamma

Click here to read/download the Judgment