Telangana High Court
United India Insurance Company ... vs Smt Darpally Gangamani on 21 November, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
M.A.C.M.A.No.347 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
This appeal has been filed by the appellant-insurance company
challenging the impugned order and decree dated 20-11-2018
passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-
Principal District Judge at Nizamabad (for short "the Tribunal") in
M.V.O.P.No.106 of 2015, whereby the Tribunal awarded
compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-with interest at 7.5% per annum to
the claimants (respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein)on account of the death
of the deceased Darpally Sailoo in a motor vehicle accident.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.09.2014 at about
4.30 pm while the deceased Darpally Sailoo was travelling as
labourer in Trolley bearing No.AP25AE8624 attached to Tractor
bearing No.AP25AE8625 from Hasgul, when the said tractor and
trolley reached near Kurthem Gadda in the outskirts of Hasgul
village, its driver drove it in rash and negligent manner, due to which
the deceased fell down from the trolley resulting in grievous crush
injuries on head and died on the spot. The police of Bichkunda
registered a case in crime No.179 of 2014 under Section 304-A IPC.
Stating that the deceased was aged 25 years and was doing
agriculture and labour on contract basis and earning Rs.10,000/-
per month and they lost love and affection and financial support of
the deceased,the claimants(wife, son, and sister of the deceased) i.e.,
respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein filed the aforesaid claim petition before
the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of
the death of the deceased.
3. Before the Tribunal, the appellant-insurance company denied
liability, by stating that the seating capacity of the tractor was only
for the driver; the deceased was an unauthorized passenger (i.e., not
covered under the insurance policy for passengers); andthat the
vehicle may have been used in a way not covered by the policy.
4. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary
evidence, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the vehicle driver and awarded Rs.10,00,000/-as
compensation to the claimants. The appellant-insurance company
filed this appeal challenging both liability and the quantum of
compensation granted by the Tribunal.
5. Considered the submissions ofthe learned counsel for the
parties andperused the record.
6. On a careful examination of the record, it is evident that
insofar as liability and negligence are concerned, the Tribunal
accepted credible eyewitness testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and
corroborating documents i.e, First Information Report, charge-sheet,
inquest, post-mortem examination report to establish that the
accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle
driver; and even though the appellant-insurance company argued
that the deceased was traveling in breach of policy (unauthorized
passenger), the Tribunal rightly did not absolve liability because
negligence was clearly proved.
7. Coming to the assessment of compensation, since there was no
documentary proof of the income of the deceased as claimed by the
claimants at Rs.10,000/-, the Tribunal reasonably fixed the notional
income at Rs.5,000/- per month, taking into consideration the
nature of his labour and the absence of wage records. Addition of
40% for future prospects, deduction of one-third for personal
expenses, and the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the
conventional heads of compensation are all consistent with the
principles enunciated in the cases of Smt.Sarla Varma vs Delhi
Transport Corporation 1 andNational Insurance Co. Ltd. vs
Pranay Sethi 2. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
cannot be said to be excessive and this Court does not find any
reason to interfere with the impugned award passed by the Tribunal.
This appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
2009(6) SCC 121
(2017) 16 SCC 680
8. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
Date:21.11.2025
JSU/SCS
