Telangana High Court
United India Insurance Company Limited vs Boggila Harini on 10 November, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
M.A.C.M.A.No.563 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company
aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22.01.2019 passed
inO.P.No.98 of 2018 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Asifabad (for short "the
Tribunal").
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be
referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the minor claimant,
represented by her father and natural guardian, filed a petition
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming
compensation of Rs.3,25,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in
a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 19.03.2017 at about
5.40 p.m. It is stated that while the minor claimant was coming out
of her house at Ramnagar, Thegalpahad village, a Hero Glamour
motorcycle bearing No.TS-01-ED-4634, driven in a rash and
negligent manner and at high speed by the respondent No.1,
dashed her and ran over her right leg, causing grievous fractures of
both bones of the right leg. Immediately, she was shifted to
Vennela Ortho Hospital, Mancherial, where she was treated as an
inpatient for seven days i.e, from 19.03.2017 to 25.03.2017 and
surgery was performed by fixing implants. It is further stated that
her father spent a considerable amount towards medical expenses,
transport, and attendant charges and claimed compensation of
Rs.3,25,000/-.
4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2, rider and owner of the
motorcycle, remained ex parte. The respondent No.3/Insurance
Company filed its counter denying the manner of accident, age and
occupation of the injured, and quantum of compensation claimed,
and contended that the rider of the motorcycle was not having a
valid driving licence and that there was a clear violation of policy
conditions, and therefore, the insurer was not liable to pay any
compensation.
5. The Tribunal, after considering the oral evidence of PW.1 and
the documentary evidence marked as Exs.A1 to A13 on behalf of
the claimant and Ex.B1 on behalf of the insurer, held that the
accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
motorcycle by respondent No.1. The Tribunal awarded a total
compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-with interest at 9% per annum from
the date of petition till realization, holding respondents 1 to 3
jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
6. Heard both sides and perused the record.
7. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/Insurance
Company contends that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the
rider of the offending motorcycle did not hold a valid driving licence
at the time of accident, which amounts to a clear breach of policy
conditions. It is also contended that the Tribunal erred in fastening
liability upon the insurer despite such violation, and that in any
event, the rate of interest awarded at 9% per annum is excessive.
He submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh and others
v. Rajbir Singh and others 1 has fixed 7.5% per annum as a
reasonable rate of interest in motor accident claim cases, and
therefore, the impugned award needs to be modified accordingly.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent
No.1 herein/claimant submits that the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is reasonable and based on proper appreciation of
evidence. It is contended that the claimant sustained grievous
fracture injuries, and underwent surgery, thereby justifying the
award granted by the Tribunal. He further submits that the insurer
has not produced any cogent evidence to establish that the rider
was not duly licensed or that there was willful breach by the
insured.
(2013) 9 SCC 54
9. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the oral and documentary
evidence, rightly held that the accident occurred due to rash and
negligent riding of the motorcycle. The charge sheet also supports
the said finding. The Tribunal considered the medical bills filed
under Exs.A4, A5, and A13 and awarded compensation under
various heads including pain and suffering, medical expenses,
transportation and attendant charges and loss of education as
follows:
Amount
Head of Compensation
(Rs.)
Pain and suffering 50,000
Medical expenses 1,29,975
Transportation and attendant charges 10,000
Loss of education 10,000
Total (rounded off) 2,00,000
The above compensation is just and reasonable and requires no
interference.
10. As regards the contention that the rider did not possess a
valid licence, the Insurance Company neither examined any official
witness nor produced any documentary proof to substantiate the
alleged breach. Mere reference to the charge sheet does not by
itself absolve the insurer of liability in the absence of proof of
willful violation by the insured. Hence, the Tribunal rightly
fastened joint and several liability on respondent Nos.1 to 3.
However, insofar as the rate of interest is concerned, this Court
finds force in the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for
the Insurance Company. In Rajesh vs. Rajbir Singh (supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the appropriate rate of interest in
motor accident claims shall be 7.5% per annum. Therefore, the
rate of 9% per annum awarded by the Tribunal requires
modification.
11. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. The award dated
22.01.2019 passed in O.P.No.98 of 2018 by the Tribunal, is
confirmed in all other respects except the rate of interest, which is
reduced from 9% to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition to
till realization. The remaining terms and conditions of the award
regarding deposit and withdrawal shall remain unaltered. No order
as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
Date: 10.11.2025
SCS/JSU
