Telangana High Court
M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd., vs Kalali Bichaiah , Buchaiah on 20 November, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
M.A.C.M.A.No.325 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company, challenging the order
and decree dated 28.09.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.20 of 2016 by the
Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District
Judge, Medak at Sangareddy (hereinafter referred to as "the
Tribunal"), whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation
of Rs.10,33,000/-together with interest at 7.5% per annum to the
respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein/claimants for the death of one
Smt. Kalali Anthamma(hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") in a
motor vehicle accident.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the claimants i.e., respondent
Nos.1 to 3 herein are the husband and children of late Smt. Kalali
Anthamma, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred
on 15.06.2015. On the said day, the deceased, who was aged about
43 years, was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing
No.AP-23-AK-7477 driven by Anjaiah and when they reached the
limits of Fasalwadi Village, Sangareddy Mandal, a Tata Ace Auto
bearing No. AP-23-TV-0758, driven by its driver i.e., respondent No.5
herein at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed at
rear side of the said motorcycle, causing head injury to the deceased,
which led to her death on 17.06.2015 while undergoing treatment in
Sunshine Hospital, Secunderabad. A criminal case was also registered
by the Police, Sangareddy (Rural), against the driver of the offending
vehiclevide Crime No.166 of 2015 under Section 304-A IPC and after
completing the investigation, charge sheet has also been filed. The
claimants filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal,
claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of the death of
the deceasedSmt.Anthamma.
3. Respondent No.4/owner of the crime vehicle and the appellant
herein/Insurance Company contested the claim petition. The
respondent No.4 denied negligence and shifted the blame on the
motorcycle rider, whereas the Insurance Company disputed
negligence, quantum of income, and its liability.
4. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary
evidence, held that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and
negligent driving of the crime vehicle and that the deceased died as a
result of the injuries sustained in the accident and accordingly
awarded a total compensation of Rs.10,33,000/-, holding the insurer
and owner jointly and severally liable.
5. Considered the submissions of the learnedStanding Counsel for
the appellant-Insurance Company and the learned counsel appearing
for respondent Nos.1 to 3-claimants and perused the record.
6. The short question for determination in this appeal is whether
the Tribunal was justified in (a) finding that the death of the deceased
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tata Ace auto
rickshaw bearing No. AP-23-TV-0758 (the crime vehicle); (b) fixing the
income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month for computation of
dependency; and (c) awarding total compensation of Rs.10,33,000/-
and directing payment by the owner and insurer (respondent No.4 and
the appellant respectively).
7. On a careful examination of the record, this Court finds that the
finding recorded by the Tribunal that the crime vehicle/Tata Ace auto
rickshaw struck the motorcycle from the rear side is supported by the
independent eyewitness (P.W.2) and corroborated by investigation
records (FIR/charge sheet). Since there is no material on record to
disprove that finding, the same does not require any interference by
this Court.
8. With regard to the assessment of notional income, the evidence
shows that the deceased was a homemaker involved in minor earning
activities and that no documentary proof of income was available. The
Tribunal, therefore, determined a reasonable notional income of
Rs.300/- per day, amounting to Rs.9,000/- per month, keeping in
view the earning capacity of the deceased and prevailing local
conditions. After deducting one-third towards personal expenses of
the deceased and applying the appropriate multiplier of '14', the
Tribunal assessed the compensation. As the appellant-insurance
company has not produced any material to demonstrate that these
parameters are erroneous or unreasonable, this Court finds no
ground to interfere with the Tribunal's assessment, which stands
justified and is liable to be sustained.
9. Coming to the question of liability, since the crime vehicle was
insured, the owner is vicariously liable for driver's tort. Furthermore,
the insurance policy was in force and as such, the owner and insurer
are held jointly and severally liable in terms of the Motor Vehicles Act.
10. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that
no error of law or perversity is made out in the impugned order passed
by the Tribunal and as such, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be
dismissed.
11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed. No order as to costs.
________________________________
JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
Date:20.11.2025
JSU/SCS
