Telangana High Court
Bhukya Dwali vs M Bhasker Rao on 24 November, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.119 AND 154 OF 2019
COMMON JUDGMENT:
These two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.119 of 2019 filed by the claimants, seeking enhancement of the compensation and M.A.C.M.A.No.154 of 2019 filed by the Insurance Company, are directed against the very same order and decree dated 12-10- 2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.25 of 2012 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge at Khammam (for short "the Tribunal").
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties will be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.06.2009 at about 24.00 hours the deceased Bhukya Venkanna and two other coolies boarded lorry bearing No.AP.24-V-1199 at Mahabubabad in order to unload the gravel and in between 24:00 hours to 01:00 hours when the lorry reached near Pedda Cheruvu Kuravi, the driver of lorry drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the driver lost control over the vehicle and dashed against a tree. As a result, Venkanna died 2 on the spot and two other coolies were injured. The police of Kuravi Police Station registered a case in Crime No.104 of 2009 under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., lorry bearing registration No.AP.24-V-1199. Stating that the deceased was aged 35 years and was hale and healthy and used to earn Rs.300/- per day by doing coolie work and that due to the sudden demise of deceased, the claimants, who are his wife and minor children, lost love and affection and financial support of the deceased, initially filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-, against the owner and insurer of the lorry and subsequently, the claim has been enhanced from Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/- which in turn was allowed by this Tribunal vide order dated 08.02.2018 in I.A.No.137 of 2017.
4. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 i.e., owner of the lorry filed a counter denying the claim petition and claiming ignorance about how the accident occurred and contesting liability, because the vehicle was insured with Respondent No.2. Respondent No.2-insurer also filed a counter not only disputing nature of the accident but also denying that its policy should cover the claim, and challenged the claimants' status, 3 age, income, and the amount claimed. It further argued that its liability is limited under statutory provisions and sought for the dismissal of the claim petition.
5. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and awarded compensation of Rs.8,76,400/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Challenging the same, the present appeals came to be filed by the claimants and the Insurance Company respectively.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants vehemently contended that the award passed by the Tribunal granting compensation of Rs.8,76,400/- in favour of the claimants is inadequate and clearly undervalues the deceased's earning capacity; even though P.W.1 testified that the deceased used to earn Rs.300/- per day, the Tribunal wrongly adopted only Rs.150/- per day despite the prevailing labour market; and taking into consideration his young age and dependents, a higher award is justified; and as such, learned counsel sought to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.10,00,000/-.
4
7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company contended that even though the insurer has no statutory liability towards unauthorized or gratuitous passengers in a goods vehicle as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, in this case, the deceased and others were carried in violation of the policy (as mere passengers), but the Tribunal wrongly fastened liability on the Insurer instead of holding the lorry-owner wholly responsible. Learned Standing Counsel further contended that the Tribunal's assessment of the deceased income at Rs.4,500/- per month and the addition of 40% for future prospects are unjustified, because there was no credible evidence that the deceased was self-employed. Learned counsel also argued that the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petition for non-joinder of the driver of the lorry, who is a necessary party for determining liability under the policy. Thus, the learned Standing Counsel sought to set aside the impugned award.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the owner of the lorry, on the other hand, contends that the insurer cannot evade liability by contending that the deceased were unauthorized or gratuitous passengers; rather, they were bona fide workers covered under IMT-17; and the award passed by the Tribunal 5 against the Insurer is legally correct. In order to buttress the said contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hanumanagouda v. United India Insurance Co 1 and the judgment of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Jamparapu Jeevamma & Ors. v. Sanapalli Veera Reddy & Anr 2.
9. On a careful examination of the entire record, this Court finds that the Tribunal rightly found negligence on the part of the lorry driver, based on credible eyewitness testimony and corroborating official reports. So far as the policy coverage is concerned, this Court accepts that the deceased was not a casual passenger but a working coolie, engaged for unloading, thereby placing him squarely within the IMT-17 clause (persons employed in connection with operation/loading-unloading), which is fully supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hanumanagouda's case (1 supra) wherein it was held that "operation" is broader than just loading/ unloading. While coming to assessment of income of the deceased by the Tribunal, this Court finds that fixing the 1 (2014) 9 SCC 341 2 2009 ACJ 938 6 deceased income at Rs.150/- per day, addition of 40% for future prospects, applying the multiplier, and deduction for dependents was reasonable and based on available evidence, and the amount awarded towards non-pecuniary heads (funeral, love & affection, consortium) is consistent with the established judicial precedents. Further, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 7.5% per annum is also not liable to be reduced. Hence, there is nothing on record to interfere with the findings arrived at by the Tribunal and therefore, the appeals filed by the claimants and the Insurance Company are liable to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A.No.119 of 2019 filed by the claimants and M.A.C.M.A.No.154 of 2019 filed by the Insurance Company are dismissed.
11. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
________________________________ JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY Date: 24.11.2025 JSU/SCS