Telangana High Court
M/S Universal Sompo General Insurance ... vs Sonai Maruthi And 5 Others on 7 August, 2025
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
MACMA.No.267 of 2022
JUDGMENT:
1. This appeal arises out of an award passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - Principal District and Sessions
Court, Medak at Sangareddy, in MVOP.No. 224 of 2017 dated
05.08.2021.
2. Appellant herein is the respondent No.3, respondent Nos.1 to
4 herein are the petitioners and respondent Nos.5 and 6 herein are
the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in M.V.O.P. For the sake of
convenience, parties will be hereinafter referred to as petitioners
and respondents.
3.1 Petitioners have filed MVOP under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with
interest at the rate of 18% per annum under different heads for the
death of the deceased-Sonai Mohan.
3.2 Petitioner No.1 is the father, petitioner No.2 is the mother,
petitioner No.3 is the brother and petitioner No.4 is the sister of
Sonai Mohan.
BRMR, J
3.3 On 21.03.2016, Sonai Mohan and his sister Sonai Preethi
(petitioner No.4) were proceeding from Patancheru towards Andole
village on a motor bike bearing No.TS-EF-7295 as petitioner No.4
has to appear SSC exam. Sonai Mohan was riding the motor cycle
in a moderate speed, at about 08.00 a.m., when they reached the
limits of Choutakur village meanwhile one lorry bearing No.AP-09-
V-4935 came in opposite direction driver by its driver [respondent
No.1] in a rash and negligent manner with high speed dashed the
bike. Due to which Sonai Mohan and Sonai Preethi received severe
injuries, they were shifted to Government Hospital, Sanga Reddy
from there Sonai Mohan was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, where he
was succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment on
21.03.2016 at 04.00 p.m.
3.4 A case in Crime No.28 of 2016 was registered at Pulkal Police
Station against the driver of the crime vehicle. The accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
crime vehicle. Respondent No.2 is the registered owner the crime
vehicle, which was insured with respondent No.3-insurance
company. The deceased Sonai Mohan was hale and healthy at the
time of accident (21.03.2016), was a private employee, earning
Rs.10,000/- per month, contributing the same to the family and
was aged about 20 years. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have lost their
BRMR, J
son and petitioner Nos.3 and 4 have lost their brother, his love and
affection and prayed to allow the O.P.
4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were set ex-parte before the
Tribunal.
5. Respondent No.3 filed counter and contended that the driver
of the crime vehicle was not possess valid driving licence as on the
date of accident and he has not satisfied the requirement of Rule-3
of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. Respondent No.2-owner
of the lorry breached the terms and conditions of the insurance
policy. Respondent No.3 denied the age, occupation, income and
health condition of the deceased. Further stated that the claim is
exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the same.
6. The Tribunal framed the following issues:
1) Whether the death of deceased occurred in the motor accident due
to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle?
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, as prayed
for, if so, at what amount and from whom?
3) To what relief?
7. Petitioner No.1 was examined as PW1, also examined PW2
[Dayanand], got marked Exs.A1 to A9. Respondent No.3 did not
adduce any evidence and got mark Ex.B1-policy.
BRMR, J
8. The Tribunal after going through the evidence let in by the
petitioners has partly allowed the O.P by awarding an amount of
Rs.9,37,200/- with costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of filing of the petition [29.06.2017] till the
date of realization, holding that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are
jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The above said
amount was apportioned and petitioner Nos.1 and 2, who are
parents of the deceased were awarded an amount Rs.3,68,000/-
each along with costs and interest and petitioner Nos.3 and 4 who
are the brother and sister of the deceased were awarded an
amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each along with costs and interest
accrued thereon and the petitioners were permitted to withdraw
50% of the awarded amount along with costs and interest and rest
of the amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in their individual
accounts in any one of the nationalized bank for a period of two
years.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant-respondent No.3 submits
that the Tribunal failed to see that the driver of the crime vehicle
was not possess valid driving licence as on the date of accident
[21.03.2016] and awarded exorbitant amount and future prospects
cannot be taken at the rate of 40%. The Tribunal wrongly treated
the deceased as an employee without any evidence and pay slip,
BRMR, J
failed to answer the contentions raised by the appellant and prayed
to set aside the impugned award dated 05.08.2021.
10.1 Notice to respondent Nos.1 to 4 - petitioner Nos.1 to 4 was
served but no one appeared to contest the case.
10.2 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that respondent
Nos.5 and 6 herein are not necessary parties to the present appeal.
11. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the
record.
12. Now the point for consideration is: whether the award passed
by the Tribunal in MVOP.No.224 of 2017 dated 05.08.2021
requires interference of this Court or not?
13. Ex.A1 is the FIR, which goes to show that crime is registered
against unknown vehicle on the compliant given by Sonai Balappa
on 22.03.2016 vide Crime No.28/2016 for the offence under
sections 304-A and 337 of IPC. Though Ex.A1-FIR is registered
against unknown vehicle but the PS Pulkal has conducted
investigation and filed charge sheet. Ex.A2-charge sheet goes to
show that the accused therein is Mangali Mallesham, who is the
driver of lorry bearing No.AP-09-V-4935. Ex.A4 is the inquest
report and Ex.A5 is the post-mortem examination report, which
goes to show that the death of the deceased was only because of
BRMR, J
the injuries sustained in the accident. Ex.A6 is the MVI report,
which shows that the accident has not occurred as a result of
mechanical failure.
14. The evidence of PW1 is that the deceased Sonai Mohan was
earning an amount Rs.10,000/-per month as a private employee,
in support of his contentions he has got marked Ex.A9-original
wage report issued by the contractor. Ex.A9 goes to show that the
gross salary of the Sonai Mohan is Rs.7,688/- per month. For the
month of January, 2016 the deceased net salary is Rs.2,805/- for
11 days, for the month of February net salary is Rs.6,100/- for 23
days and for the month of March, 2016 net salary is Rs.4,175/- for
17 days. Though PW1 has not examined the contractor who
issued Ex.A9 certificate, the Tribunal has considered the age of the
deceased and assessed the monthly earning at Rs.6,000/- per
month, as the accident occurred on 21.03.2016. The finding of the
Tribunal with regard to the assessment of the earning is
appropriate.
15. The eye witness to the incident is PW2 who is the driver of
the auto bearing No.TS-15-UC-8391, his evidence is that on
21.03.2016 when he was proceeding from Sangareddy towards
Jogipet in his auto, when he reached the limits of Choutkur village
at 08.00 a.m., Sonai Mohan and his sister Sonai Preethi were
BRMR, J
proceeding from Sangareddy towards Andole village on their bike
bearing No.TS-15-EF-7295 in front of his auto in a moderate speed
and in a correct direction but at the same time the driver of the
lorry bearing No.AP-09-V-4935 drove the vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner with high speed hit their bike from the opposite
direction, as a result Sonai Mohan and his sister Sonai Preethi
received injuries and they were shifted to Government Hospital,
Sangareddy, from there they were shifted to Gandhi Hospital,
Secunderabad, Sonai Mohan died while undergoing treatment on
21.03.2016 at 04.00 p.m. Though PW2 was cross-examined by the
insurance company's counsel he denied the suggestion that he is
giving false evidence and he is not cited as a witness in the charge
sheet (Ex.A2).
16. Insofar as the age of the deceased is concerned Exs.A4 and
A5 shows the age of the deceased as 20 years. Ex.A7 is the
secondary school certificate of the deceased Sonnayya Mohan
which goes to show that his date of birth is 16.05.1998 as the
accident has occurred on 21.03.2016 his age as on the date of the
accident is about 17 years. The Tribunal has rightly added 40% of
future prospects of the deceased towards the monthly income and
applied multiplier '18' for the age group of 15-20 years and also
awarded amount towards loss of estate and funeral expenses.
BRMR, J
17. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is as under:
Sl.No. Name of the head Amount
awarded by the
Tribunal
1. Income Rs.6,000/- per
month
2. Add 40% future prospects Rs.8,400/-
(40% of 6000)
+6,000)
3. Deduct 50% towards personal Rs.4,200/-
(8,400 x 50%)
expenses
4. Total income Rs.50,400/-
per annum
5. Multiplier '18' Rs.9,07,200/-
6. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
7. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.9,37,200/-
18. Though PW2 is not cited as a witness in Ex.A2 but his
evidence cannot be brush aside in view of the fact that the accident
has occurred in front of his auto. The evidence of PW1, PW2
coupled with Exs.A1, A2, A4, A5 and A6 goes to show that accident
has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the lorry bearing No.AP-09-V-4935.
19. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal
failed to answer the points raised in the counter. Appellant-
respondent No.3 stated in the counter that the driver of the crime
vehicle do not possess valid driving licence as on the date of the
accident. To substantiate the same, appellant-respondent No.3 has
BRMR, J
not produced any evidence that the driver of the crime vehicle do
not possess valid driving licence as on the date of accident.
Furthermore, the driver of the crime vehicle is charged for the
offence under sections 304-A and 337 of IPC. In absence of any
evidence on behalf of the appellant-respondent No.3 it cannot be
said that the driver of the crime vehicle is not possessing valid
driving licence as on the date of accidence. The Tribunal has also
answered the said fact in the award.
20. Ex.B1 is the insurance policy issued by the appellant-
respondent No.3 which is valid from 24.12.2015 to 23.12.2016 for
the lorry bearing No.AP-09-V-4935. Policy is in force on the date of
accident i.e. 21.03.2016.
21. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, which is
appropriate.
22. The Tribunal has answered all the contentions raised by the
appellant-respondent No.3 in proper prospective and rightly fixed
of the salary of the deceased Sonai Mohan at the rate of Rs.6,000/-
per month and awarded compensation under different heads is
appropriate, appellant has not made out any case to set aside the
impugned order.
BRMR, J
23. There are no merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be
dismissed, accordingly dismissed.
24. MACMA.No.267 of 2022 is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Interim orders granted, if any, shall stands vacated.
Miscellaneous application/applications stands closed.
______________________________
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J
07.08.2025
Dua
