Telangana High Court
M/S National Insurance Company Limited vs Nenavath Janamma And 2 Others on 18 August, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
M.A.C.M.A.No.365 of 2023
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant
and Ms. Vladimeer Khatoon, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Perused the entire record.
2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/respondent No.2 i.e.,
insurance company aggrieved by the award passed by the learned
Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XII Additional Chief
Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, in M.V.O.P.No.185 of 2018 dated
20.04.2022, wherein an amount of Rs.20,27,000/- was awarded towards
compensation in a claim petition filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein
seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of death of one
Nenavath Babu Naik in a road traffic accident from the appellant and
respondent No.3 herein jointly and severally.
3. The brief facts are that on 15.08.2016, the deceased and his friend
(respondent No.3 herein) were going from Hyderabad to Somashila on
motorcycle bearing No.TS 10 EG 9227 and on reaching Rajapur limits on
NH-44, Balangar, Mahabubnagar, respondent No.3, who was riding the
motorcycle, drove the motorcycle in rash and negligent manner in high
speed causing the fall of the motorcycle. As a result, the deceased
RY,J
MACMA_365_2023
sustained injuries and was shifted to Area Government Hospital, Jedcherla
and then to NIMS, Panjagutta, Hyderabad, where he died on 29.08.2016.
On account of death of the deceased, the parents of the deceased i.e.,
respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed claim petition seeking compensation of
Rs.15,00,000/-.
4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein/claim petitioners got examined
P.Ws.1 and 2 and got exhibited Exs.A-1 to A-8. On behalf of the appellant,
Ex.B-1 was got marked. Upon examining the evidence on record, the
Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.20,27,000/- leading to filing of the
present appeal by the appellant i.e., insurance company.
5. In grounds of appeal, the appellant-insurance company pleaded that
the accident occurred due to own negligence of the deceased and the
appellant-insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.
Further, it is emphasized that no eyewitness is examined and P.W.2, who is
examined as eyewitness denied his involvement in the accident. Lastly, it
is pleaded that respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein colluded with police and
falsely implicated the insured vehicle for compensation and prayed that the
present appeal be allowed by setting aside the impugned award.
6. A perusal of the police record shows that the deceased was pillion
rider of the motorcycle involved in the accident and the same was driven by
RY,J
MACMA_365_2023
one Nenavath Rajesh Naik. Since the deceased was not riding the
motorcycle, no negligence can be attributed to him for occurrence of the
accident. In fact, the deceased was the victim of negligent driving of the
rider of motorcycle.
7. The next point pleaded in grounds of appeal is that the P.W.2 is not
eyewitness to the accident. When the evidence of P.W.2 is perused, it is
seen that P.W.2 deposed that he along with another person were travelling
on motorcycle on the date of the accident and they witnessed the accident.
P.W.2 never deposed that he himself was involved in the accident. It is
rightly contended by the appellant that the name of P.W.2 does not figure
in the charge sheet. However, any eyewitness whose name does not figure
in the charge sheet can also be examined in-case he or she witnessed the
accident. As such, no fault can be found with the evidence of P.W.2, who
allegedly witness the accident and deposed before the Tribunal.
8. Lastly, the appellant alleged mala fide implication of insured vehicle
in the accident for seeking wrongful gain. In that context, a perusal of the
counter filed by the appellant before the Tribunal does not show any
pleadings with respect to false implication of the insured vehicle in the
accident. The counter filed by the appellant before the Tribunal contains
routine defences taken about driving license violation, non-filing of
RY,J
MACMA_365_2023
accident information report, violation of Sections 156 (1) and 134 (c) and
also defence available under Sections 170 (b) and 149 (2) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, etc,. There is no specific pleading in the counter about
the false implication of the insured vehicle in the accident. In addition to
failure to plead about false implication of the insured vehicle, the appellant
also failed to examine any witness on its behalf to depose about the same
before the Tribunal. The appellant merely marked Ex.B-1 i.e., copy of the
insurance policy without leading any oral evidence. Such failure to
examine any witness tantamounts to accepting the claim put forth by
respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, without any defence.
9. In the circumstances, this Court does not see any reason to interfere
with the impugned award passed by the Tribunal as such the appeal lacks
merits and is liable to be dismissed.
10. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed confirming the award,
dated 20.04.2022 passed by the Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.185 of 2018.
There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any,
pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.
_________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 18.08.2025
GVR
