Subscribe

Latest › AP High Court › 28 September 2026

AP High Court

AP High Court: Lorry owner stays liable as insurance began after the accident, but compensation raised to Rs 4.36 lakh

Court
High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Date of judgment
28 September 2026
Case
MACMA/2481/2012
Parties
V. SIVA REDDY Vs KOPPULA SALEMMA & 2 OTHERS
Bench
ALAPATI GIRIDHAR
Outcome
Dismissed

Summary

A lorry owner appealed against a tribunal award for the death of an 18-year-old cyclist, arguing his insurance premium was paid on the day of the accident. The High Court found the policy was taken after the accident, so the owner remains liable, but it increased the compensation on its own after finding the tribunal had calculated it wrongly.

What the court held

The Court dismissed the owner's appeal with costs of Rs 20,000 payable to the claimants. The earlier cover note lapsed in July 2002 and the new cover note was issued at 9 p.m. on the accident day, with the owner failing to prove an earlier payment or to examine the insurance agent. Invoking Order 41 Rule 33 CPC, the Court enhanced the award from Rs 2,60,000 to Rs 4,36,400 with 7.5% interest, by applying future prospects, the multiplier of 18 and conventional heads under National Insurance Co. v. Pranay Sethi. The claimants must pay the additional court fee within 30 days.

Key issues

Provisions referred to

Read the full judgment (PDF) ↗

Official source: High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The PDF above is a copy from an open dataset of the court's public records.

This summary is prepared for general assistance only. It may contain errors and is not legal advice — rely on the full judgment.

Motor Accident ClaimsInsuranceCompensationMact Appeal

Related judgments

Supreme Court ·12 Aug 2026 ·Electricity Law

Supreme Court: Electricity boards face strict, not absolute, liability for electrocution; writ petitions unsuitable where facts are disputed

Two electrocution victims' claimants had won compensation of about Rs 25.5 lakh and Rs 44.3 lakh from the Karnataka High Court against the state power transmission company, which treated its liability as absolute and ignored disputed facts. The Supreme Court held that such cases involve strict liability, which has recognised exceptions, and that a writ petition is not the right remedy when negligence and other facts are genuinely disputed.

Appeal(s) allowed 2026 INSC 847