Telangana High Court
M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd., vs Kalali Bichaiah , Buchaiah on 20 November, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
M.A.C.M.A.No.325 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company, challenging the order and decree dated 28.09.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.20 of 2016 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.10,33,000/-together with interest at 7.5% per annum to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein/claimants for the death of one Smt. Kalali Anthamma(hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") in a motor vehicle accident.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the claimants i.e., respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are the husband and children of late Smt. Kalali Anthamma, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 15.06.2015. On the said day, the deceased, who was aged about 43 years, was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing No.AP-23-AK-7477 driven by Anjaiah and when they reached the limits of Fasalwadi Village, Sangareddy Mandal, a Tata Ace Auto bearing No. AP-23-TV-0758, driven by its driver i.e., respondent No.5 herein at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed at rear side of the said motorcycle, causing head injury to the deceased, 2 which led to her death on 17.06.2015 while undergoing treatment in Sunshine Hospital, Secunderabad. A criminal case was also registered by the Police, Sangareddy (Rural), against the driver of the offending vehiclevide Crime No.166 of 2015 under Section 304-A IPC and after completing the investigation, charge sheet has also been filed. The claimants filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceasedSmt.Anthamma.
3. Respondent No.4/owner of the crime vehicle and the appellant herein/Insurance Company contested the claim petition. The respondent No.4 denied negligence and shifted the blame on the motorcycle rider, whereas the Insurance Company disputed negligence, quantum of income, and its liability.
4. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle and that the deceased died as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident and accordingly awarded a total compensation of Rs.10,33,000/-, holding the insurer and owner jointly and severally liable.
5. Considered the submissions of the learnedStanding Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3-claimants and perused the record. 3
6. The short question for determination in this appeal is whether the Tribunal was justified in (a) finding that the death of the deceased occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tata Ace auto rickshaw bearing No. AP-23-TV-0758 (the crime vehicle); (b) fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month for computation of dependency; and (c) awarding total compensation of Rs.10,33,000/- and directing payment by the owner and insurer (respondent No.4 and the appellant respectively).
7. On a careful examination of the record, this Court finds that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the crime vehicle/Tata Ace auto rickshaw struck the motorcycle from the rear side is supported by the independent eyewitness (P.W.2) and corroborated by investigation records (FIR/charge sheet). Since there is no material on record to disprove that finding, the same does not require any interference by this Court.
8. With regard to the assessment of notional income, the evidence shows that the deceased was a homemaker involved in minor earning activities and that no documentary proof of income was available. The Tribunal, therefore, determined a reasonable notional income of Rs.300/- per day, amounting to Rs.9,000/- per month, keeping in view the earning capacity of the deceased and prevailing local conditions. After deducting one-third towards personal expenses of the deceased and applying the appropriate multiplier of '14', the 4 Tribunal assessed the compensation. As the appellant-insurance company has not produced any material to demonstrate that these parameters are erroneous or unreasonable, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the Tribunal's assessment, which stands justified and is liable to be sustained.
9. Coming to the question of liability, since the crime vehicle was insured, the owner is vicariously liable for driver's tort. Furthermore, the insurance policy was in force and as such, the owner and insurer are held jointly and severally liable in terms of the Motor Vehicles Act.
10. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that no error of law or perversity is made out in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and as such, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
________________________________ JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY Date:20.11.2025 JSU/SCS