(Prayer: Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High CourtUnder Section 173 appeal against the judgment and decree passed in M.v.O.P.No.469/2010, dated 19/6/2013 on the file of the court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum-III Addl District Judge, Rajampet, Kadapa District.

IA NO: 1 OF 2013(MACMAMP 6491 OF 2013

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To condone the delay of 84 days in filing the present appeal and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to condone the delay of 929 days in filing the Review Petition M.A.C.M.A.No.2728 of 2014 and pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to allow the review petition by modifying the order passed in MAGMA No.2728 of 2014 of the order dt.28.11.2022 and pass

IA NO: 3 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including the execution proceedings in MACMA.No.2728 of 2014 Date 28.11.2022 in M.V.O.P.No.469 of 2010 on the file in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lll Additional District Judge, Rajampet, Kadapa district and pass)

Common Order:

1. [i] The claimants in M.V.O.P. No.469 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Court, Rajampet (for short “learned MACT”) filed appeal in MACMA No.2728 of 2014, dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned MACT in the said O.P. vide judgment dated 19.06.2013 seeking enhancement.

                  [ii] The legal representatives of one Kongara @ Madiga Deva Raju (herein after referred as „the deceased‟), who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 21.07.2010, filed M.V.O.P.No.469 of 2010 are the claimants prayed for awarding a compensation of Rs.27,50,000/- .

                  [iii] The claim was allowed in part, by the learned MACT for an amount of Rs.6,87,996/- with interest @7.5% p.a. and consequential directions as to deposit, disbursement etc. The appeal in MACMA No. 2728 of 2014 was disposed of by this Court on 28.11.2022 enhancing compensation awarded by the learned MACT at Rs.6,87,996/-, to Rs.23,91,996/- along with interest with 7.5% p.a., in terms of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarala Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another(2009 ACJ 1298), National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others‟((2017) 16 SCC 680) and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., V. Nanu Ram‟s(2013 ACJ 1403 (S.C.)).

2. Present I.A. No. 2 of 2025 is filed by the respondent for review of the judgment passed by this Court in MACMA No.2728 of 2024 dated 28.11.2022 along with an application for condonation of delay of (929) days viz. I.A. No.1 of 2025. Both the applications are heard together.

3. Heard learned counsel representing both sides.

4. Sri Aravla Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner in both the applications i.e., APSRTC –respondent before the learned MACT, would submit that the delay is not intentional, (i) getting legal opinion from the Standing Counsel (ii) misplacement of the case bundle and (iii) change of Standing Counsel have contributed the delay. He has further submitted that the deceased in this case is an employee; compassionate appointment was given to the claimant No.3, family member of the deceased in M.V.O.P.No.469 of 2010 as a Conductor and the same could not be brought to the notice of this Court. Therefore, the factor of dependency is required to be revisited as the loss of dependency gets reduced and excessive scale of dependency adopted results in undue enrichment to the claimants and huge financial burden to the petitioner- Corporation. Therefore, there are sufficient factual and legal grounds to review the judgment by condoning delay. He requested to pass appropriate orders reducing the compensation awarded.

5. Per Contra, Sri D. Kodhandarami Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants would submit that the delay is abnormal, lacking sufficient reasons and the cause for the delay as well as the grounds urged for review are not tenable. Compassionate appointment by an employer would make no difference in assessing the entitlement of the claimants for the compensation. Therefore, both the applications are liable to be dismissed.

6. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by both sides.

7. Points that arise for determination in these applications are –

                  1) Whether the delay of (929) days in filing an application vide I.A. No. 2 of 25 for review of the judgment of this Court in MACMA No.2728 of 2014 is properly explained and fit to be condoned?

                  2) Whether there are sufficient grounds to review the judgment dated 28.11.2022 passed by this Court in MACMA No. 2728 of 2014?

                  3) What is the result of I.A. No. 1 of 2025?

                  4) What is the result of I.A. No. 2 of 2025?

Point No.1:-

8. No specific counter is filed by the respondents/claimants to I.A. No.1 of 2025. But orally opposed all the submissions. The reasons canvassed for the delay are –

                  1. Misplacement of case bundle,

                  2. Time taken for getting legal opinion,

                  3. Change of Standing Counsel.

9. Although the reasons stated are pale, in view of the merits and legal point pressed into service, that compassionate appointment is given to the member of the deceased family and excess scale is adopted in taking note of the extent of dependency and upon pragmatic consideration of the reasons explained, this Court is of the view that the delay is fit to be condoned, to enable the parties to contest the legal issues on merits, particularly in the context of the good practice that determining of a case on merits is preferable to disposal of a case on mere technicalities. Therefore, the point framed is answered in favour of the petitioner/respondent APSRTC and the delay is condoned. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

Point No.2:

10. Claimant No.3 is daughter of the deceased. She was given compassionate appointment as a Conductor, pursuant to the death of her father. Whether the compassionate appointment and the salary got by the daughter of the deceased will have any impact on taking note of the income of the deceased as on the date of death of the deceased at particular scale and the extent of dependency of legal heirs is one point. Further, as per the petitioner/ APSRTC compassionate appointment was given to claimant No.3 on 24.10.2019 vide Order No.E2/684(1)/2019-RM-KNL dated 24.10.2019. Judgment in the appeal was pronounced on 28.11.2022. There was sufficient time i.e. more than 3 years time, from 2019 to 2022, from the date of appointment to the date of judgment of this Court. What prevented the petitioner-APSRTC from placing the same before this Court at the time of the disposal of the appeal in MACMA No. 2728 of 2014 is not explained. A bald statement that the same could not be brought to the notice of the Court due to over sight etc. is not acceptable as the same is not indicating bonafides on the part of the petitioner. However, the legal position with regard to taking note of the compassionate appointment, as an objection in quantifying compensation when a claim is made under Motor Vehicles Act and scope of review is as follows:

Legal Position:

Statutory Guidance-Power of Review:

11. (i). Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 :-

                  114. Review.—Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved—

                  (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred.

                  (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code, or

                  (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.

                  (ii). Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 reads as follows:

                  1. Application for review of judgment.—

                  (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved—

                  (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,

                  (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or

                  (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.

                  (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applied for the review.

                  Jurisprudence on the point - whether compassionate appointment shall be taken into consideration while quantifying compensation payable in motor vehicle accident cases:-

12. The salary drawn by the family member / legal representative of the deceased, who got compassionate appointment cannot be deducted, is the proposition of law settled by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Vimal Kanwar and Ors. Vs. Kishore Dan and others(2013(7) SCC 476), while interpreting the pecuniary advantages received. It is observed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court that the salary receivable by the dependents upon compassionate appointment of a victim does not come under pecuniary advantage. Relevant observations are made in paragraph Nos.20 and 21 of the said judgment, which read as follows:

                  “20. The second issue is “whether the salary receivable by the claimant on compassionate appointment comes within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as „pecuniary advantage‟ liable for deduction”.

                  21. “Compassionate appointment” can be one of the conditions of service of an employee, if a scheme to that effect is framed by the employer. In case, the employee dies in harness i.e. while in service leaving behind the dependants, one of the dependants may request for compassionate appointment to maintain the family of the deceased employee who dies in harness. This cannot be stated to be an advantage receivable by the heirs on account of one's death and have no correlation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned on account of accidental death.

                  Compassionate appointment may have nexus with the death of an employee while in service but it is not necessary that it should have a correlation with the accidental death. An employee dies in harness even in normal course, due to illness and to maintain the family of the deceased one of the dependants may be entitled for compassionate appointment but that cannot be termed as “pecuniary advantage” that comes under the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act and any amount received on such appointment is not liable for deduction for determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.”

13. Further, the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Vimal Kanwar’s case, while interpreting the pecuniary advantages received, observed that the salary receivable by the dependents upon compassionate appointment of a victim also does not come under pecuniary advantage on par with Provident fund, pension, Life Insurance amount receivable by the claimant and the same do not come within the purview of Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as pecuniary advantage.

14. In Krishnasish Chanda Vs. Naveen Kumar and Others(2025 SCC OnLine AP 2195) vide M.A.C.M.A. No. 1656 of 2015, a Division Bench of this Court, wherein I am also one of the members, addressed this aspect with reference to the observations of the Honourable Apex Court in para 28 as follows:-

                  “28. From the precedential guidance, the amounts received from what sources cannot be deducted from the compensation payable to the victims in a motor accident and which do not fall under „pecuniary advantage‟ for the purpose of balancing loss and gain can be illustrated as follows:-

                  1) Salary received by the dependent upon compassionate appointment due to victim‟s death cannot be termed as „pecuniary advantage‟.

                  2) Pension is not pecuniary advantage.

                  3) Provident Fund is not a pecuniary advantage.

                  4) Life Insurance amount receivable by the claimants (L.Rs. of deceased) is not a pecuniary advantage.

                  5) Bank balances received by the legal representatives of a deceased cannot be pecuniary advantage.

                  6) Share, share values, fixed deposit matures to the heirs are not a pecuniary advantage.”

15. The same view is reiterated in the judgment dated 10.04.2026 passed by this Court in MACMA No.2294 of 2015 as well as the judgment dated 22.01.2026, in MACMA No.4049 of 2014, authored by me.

16. In the light of the above discussion, in the present case, the factors that can be taken into consideration are –

                  1) The compassionate appointment was made in the year 2019.

                  2) The judgment in this case in M.A.C.M.A.No.2728 of 2014 sought to be reviewed was passed on 28.11.2022.

                  3) There was much time to the petitioner - APSRTC to place the material.

                  4) The material is very much within the knowledge of the petitioner.

                  5) There is no discovery of new fact.

                  6) There is no error apparent on the face of the record.

                  7) The salary paid to the legal representative of compassionate appointment need not be deducted from the income of the deceased while taking the income for the purpose of calculating the quantum of compensation.

17. In the light of the above discussion, the point No.2 is answered against the petitioner /APSRTC concluding that there are no grounds to review the judgment dated 28.11.2022 by this Court in MACMA No.2728 of 2017.

Point Nos.3 and 4:-

18. In the result,

                  [i] I.A.No.01 of 2025 is allowed.

                  [ii] I.A.No.2 of 2025 is dismissed.