[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs M. Vijaya Durga on 2 December, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
M.A.C.M.A.No.552 of 2019
DATE: 02.12.2025
Between:
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Through its Branch Manager,
New Bus Stand Main Road, Sanga Reddy.
.....Appellant
AND
M. Vijaya Durga and two others.
....Respondents
JUDGMENT:
This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, is preferred by the appellant-insurance company assailing the
order and decree dated 31.08.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.23 of 2017
on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal
District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, whereby the Tribunal awarded
total compensation of Rs.9,09,000/- with interest at 7.5% per
annum in favour of the respondents-claimants for the death of the
deceased-Smt.M.Venkata Laxmi.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 02.11.2015 at about
11.00 a.m., the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider on the
motorcycle bearing No.AP-23-AJ-0754 driven by one M. Laxmaiah
from Jogipet towards Madananda Ashram at Thoguta. When the
motorcycle reached within the limits of Korvipally village, the rider
drove the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and applied
sudden brake, due to which the deceased fell down on the road and
sustained grievous head and facial injuries. She was shifted to
Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad, where she succumbed to the injuries.
A case in Crime No.107 of 2015 was registered at Shankarampet
Police Station. Stating that the deceased was hale and healthy, aged
about 43 years and used to earn Rs.7,000/- per month, the
respondent Nos.1 and 2/claimants filed the aforesaid O.P seeking
compensation of Rs.14,00,000/- against the respondent No.3 and
the appellant/Insurance Company.
3. Before the Tribunal, the respondent No.3/owner-cum-driver of
the motorcycle filed counter and contended that the crime vehicle is
validly insured and that there was no violation and as such, prayed
to fasten the liability on the Insurance Company alone. The
appellant-insurance company filed counter and contended that there
was no rash and negligent driving by the driver of the crime vehicle
and that the compensation claimed is excessive and ultimately,
prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
4. The Tribunal, after conducting full-fledged trial and on
appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, held that the
accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle.
Relying on Ex.A2-charge sheet and other documents, the Tribunal
rejected the defence raised by the insurance company and held that
the insurer failed to establish breach of policy conditions. The
Tribunal assessed the monthly contribution of the deceased at
Rs.7,000/-, applied multiplier '14', and awarded compensation of
Rs.9,09,000/- under various heads with interest at 7.5% per annum.
Aggrieved by the fastening of liability and the quantum awarded, the
insurance company filed the present appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and
perused the record.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company
contended that the Tribunal committed error in relying on Ex.A2-
charge sheet. It is argued that the Investigating Officer did not
conduct proper investigation and mechanically blamed the rider. It is
contended that the deceased slipped on her own due to imbalance
and that there was no negligence on the part of the rider. It is further
contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
excessive and prayed to reduce the same.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants
supported the impugned award and submitted that Ex.A2 clearly
discloses that the Investigating Officer, after thorough investigation,
concluded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of the motorcycle rider. It is contended that the insurer did
not produce a single document or witness to prove breach of policy
conditions or to discredit the evidence on record. It is further
contended that the income, age and dependency were properly
assessed by the Tribunal and the compensation awarded is just and
reasonable.
8. On the question of negligence, the record reveals that PW1
supported the case of the claimants. After conducting thorough
investigation, Ex.A2-charge sheet was filed, wherein negligence was
attributed against the rider of the motorcycle. Ex.A1-F.I.R, Ex.A3-
post-mortem report, Ex.A4-inquest and Ex.A5-scene of offence
panchanama also corroborate the case of the claimants. The insurer
did not lead any contrary evidence. Thus, the Tribunal rightly
accepted the manner of accident as pleaded by the claimants and
held that the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving by the
driver of crime vehicle.
9. Regarding quantum of compensation, the Tribunal assessed
the contribution of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month and after
deducting one-third towards personal expenses and applying
multiplier '14', computed loss of dependency. The amounts awarded
towards conventional heads are reasonable. The total compensation
of Rs.9,09,000/- is just and proper. Therefore, this Court finds no
error in the findings recorded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, this
appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
10. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
Date: 02.12.2025
scs
