The Superior Court of Andhra Pradesh establishes parameters to dispute negligence in cases of claims of motor vehicle accidents

A single judge bank of the Superior Court of Andhra Pradesh that includes Judge A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, While it is an appeal that challenged the sustainability of an award and a decree approved by the additional district judge, the accidents of accidents-recognition of the court, NGOle, established certain advisory parameters that will be followed in cases of claims of car accidents while disputing negligence. The court ordered 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 the oath and proven by interrogation.
4. The eyewitness exam reflected in the charges presented by the Police is preferable. However, the same cannot be the role of the thumb, if the presence of such witnesses examined is probable in the crime scene, at the relevant time.
5. The driver of the offensive vehicle, if he takes a witness position and denies negligence, will have his own importance, at least in cases of contributory negligence.
6. In cases of serious disputes regarding the sowing of witnesses or vehicles, convene investigating officers and cause probabilities or improbilities will have a considerable impact.
7. The approximate sketch of the offensive scene and motor vehicles inform the inspector that indicates the damage to the vehicles, etc., will have its own effect to claim the position of the parts.
8. However, a standard stick or formula jacket is not possible and each matter must be considered by its own merits, facts and circumstances, including relevant and reliable evidence presented to this court.
9. Finally, the court will have a holistic vision of the matter. “

Background:

On 24.06.2013, an accident occurred when the deceased, Jyothi Marthamma, was beaten by an APSRTC bus while crossing the road near his workplace in a brick oven. The bus driver, the fifth respondent, remained ex part during the process. After the incident, the claimants, including the husband of the deceased, two daughters and his mother, requested compensation due to the loss of the deceased. There was a police case against the bus driver under sections 338 and 204-A of the Indian Criminal Code for causing injuries that finally resulted in Jyothi’s death.

Motor accidents claim that the Court (MACT) discovered that the accident was caused by the eruption and negligent driving of the bus driver. This conclusion was supported by witness testimonies and police documentation, which led the court to govern in favor of the plaintiffs regarding the negligence of the driver. The MACT granted a total compensation of RS. 4,62,000/- with annual interest and distributed RS. 2,37,000/- to the husband and RS.75,000/- each to the other plaintiffs.

The order of the myctea was appealed to the Superior Court by defendant No.2 (the managing director, APSRTC) on the reason that (i) the MACT ignored the deceased’s negligence when crossing the road, (ii) the amount of compensation was not substantiated by any solid evidence, and (iii) for the plaintiffs, it was argued that the interest rate granted compensation required, compensation was required, the interest rate was required. absence of the appeal by the plaintiffs.

To deal with the issue of negligence, the court not only established the parameters mentioned above, but also based on the case of Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC ((2009) 13 SCC 530), where the Supreme Court acknowledged that the claimants could not always provide strict evidence on the exact cause of the accident or the participation of a specific vehicle. Instead, they only need to establish their case based on the preponderance of probability instead of demonstrating it beyond a reasonable doubt.

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

In addition, the court indicated that the compensation initially granted by the MACT was insufficient and a justified improvement. It was based, inter aliaThe case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. E.Suselamma and others (2023 SCC Online Ap 172), where the Supreme Court had reiterated that the claimants have the right to Only compensation, And the court, in its appeal powers, can improve the award even without an appeal or cross -objection if compensation seems inadequate.

When reviewing the evidence and circumstances surrounding the case, the court determined that the claimants were entitled to total compensation of RS. 6,22,000/-. This amount included several bosses of compensation, such as loss of dependence, loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of heritage, etc. In addition, interest in total compensation was improved from 6% annual to 7.5% per year.

The amount of compensation was, therefore, modified and the appeal was dismissed.

Case details:

Case number: Macma No.1722 of 2016

Judgment date: 10.03.2025

Click here to read/download order