Telangana High Court
Icici Lombard Genreal Insurance ... vs Bhukya Dwali on 24 November, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.119 AND 154 OF 2019
COMMON JUDGMENT:
These two appeals are being disposed of by this common
judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.119 of 2019 filed by the
claimants, seeking enhancement of the compensation and
M.A.C.M.A.No.154 of 2019 filed by the Insurance Company, are
directed against the very same order and decree dated 12-10-
2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.25 of 2012 by the Chairman, Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge at
Khammam (for short "the Tribunal").
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties will be
referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.06.2009 at about
24.00 hours the deceased Bhukya Venkanna and two other
coolies boarded lorry bearing No.AP.24-V-1199 at Mahabubabad
in order to unload the gravel and in between 24:00 hours to
01:00 hours when the lorry reached near Pedda Cheruvu
Kuravi, the driver of lorry drove the same in a rash and
negligent manner, due to which the driver lost control over the
vehicle and dashed against a tree. As a result, Venkanna died
on the spot and two other coolies were injured. The police of
Kuravi Police Station registered a case in Crime No.104 of 2009
under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC against the driver of the
crime vehicle i.e., lorry bearing registration No.AP.24-V-1199.
Stating that the deceased was aged 35 years and was hale and
healthy and used to earn Rs.300/- per day by doing coolie work
and that due to the sudden demise of deceased, the claimants,
who are his wife and minor children, lost love and affection and
financial support of the deceased, initially filed the claim
petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-, against the owner and
insurer of the lorry and subsequently, the claim has been
enhanced from Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/- which in turn
was allowed by this Tribunal vide order dated 08.02.2018 in
I.A.No.137 of 2017.
4. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 i.e., owner of the
lorry filed a counter denying the claim petition and claiming
ignorance about how the accident occurred and contesting
liability, because the vehicle was insured with Respondent
No.2. Respondent No.2-insurer also filed a counter not only
disputing nature of the accident but also denying that its policy
should cover the claim, and challenged the claimants' status,
age, income, and the amount claimed. It further argued that its
liability is limited under statutory provisions and sought for the
dismissal of the claim petition.
5. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on
record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the lorry and awarded compensation of Rs.8,76,400/- with
interest @ 7.5% per annum. Challenging the same, the present
appeals came to be filed by the claimants and the Insurance
Company respectively.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants vehemently
contended that the award passed by the Tribunal granting
compensation of Rs.8,76,400/- in favour of the claimants is
inadequate and clearly undervalues the deceased's earning
capacity; even though P.W.1 testified that the deceased used to
earn Rs.300/- per day, the Tribunal wrongly adopted only
Rs.150/- per day despite the prevailing labour market; and
taking into consideration his young age and dependents, a
higher award is justified; and as such, learned counsel sought
to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to
Rs.10,00,000/-.
7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Insurance
Company contended that even though the insurer has no
statutory liability towards unauthorized or gratuitous
passengers in a goods vehicle as per the provisions of the Motor
Vehicles Act, in this case, the deceased and others were carried
in violation of the policy (as mere passengers), but the Tribunal
wrongly fastened liability on the Insurer instead of holding the
lorry-owner wholly responsible. Learned Standing Counsel
further contended that the Tribunal's assessment of the
deceased income at Rs.4,500/- per month and the addition of
40% for future prospects are unjustified, because there was no
credible evidence that the deceased was self-employed. Learned
counsel also argued that the Tribunal ought to have dismissed
the claim petition for non-joinder of the driver of the lorry, who
is a necessary party for determining liability under the policy.
Thus, the learned Standing Counsel sought to set aside the
impugned award.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the owner of the lorry, on
the other hand, contends that the insurer cannot evade liability
by contending that the deceased were unauthorized or
gratuitous passengers; rather, they were bona fide workers
covered under IMT-17; and the award passed by the Tribunal
against the Insurer is legally correct. In order to buttress the
said contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Hanumanagouda v. United India Insurance Co 1 and the
judgment of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh High Court in the
case of Jamparapu Jeevamma & Ors. v. Sanapalli Veera
Reddy & Anr 2.
9. On a careful examination of the entire record, this Court
finds that the Tribunal rightly found negligence on the part of
the lorry driver, based on credible eyewitness testimony and
corroborating official reports. So far as the policy coverage is
concerned, this Court accepts that the deceased was not a
casual passenger but a working coolie, engaged for unloading,
thereby placing him squarely within the IMT-17 clause (persons
employed in connection with operation/loading-unloading),
which is fully supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Hanumanagouda's case (1 supra) wherein
it was held that "operation" is broader than just loading/
unloading. While coming to assessment of income of the
deceased by the Tribunal, this Court finds that fixing the
(2014) 9 SCC 341
2009 ACJ 938
deceased income at Rs.150/- per day, addition of 40% for future
prospects, applying the multiplier, and deduction for
dependents was reasonable and based on available evidence,
and the amount awarded towards non-pecuniary heads
(funeral, love & affection, consortium) is consistent with the
established judicial precedents. Further, the rate of interest
awarded by the Tribunal at 7.5% per annum is also not liable to
be reduced. Hence, there is nothing on record to interfere with
the findings arrived at by the Tribunal and therefore, the
appeals filed by the claimants and the Insurance Company are
liable to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A.No.119 of 2019 filed by the
claimants and M.A.C.M.A.No.154 of 2019 filed by the Insurance
Company are dismissed.
11. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
dismissed. No order as to costs.
________________________________
JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
Date: 24.11.2025
JSU/SCS
