Telangana High Court
M/S. Universal Sompo General Insurance ... vs Tadicherlka Swaroopa, on 25 November, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
M.A.C.M.A.No.504 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 19.11.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.513 of
2016 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional Chief
Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (hereinafter referred to as "the
Tribunal"), whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation
of Rs.10,22,000/-together with interest at 7.5% per annum to the
respondent Nos.1 and2 herein/claimants for the death of one
Tadicherla Venkatesh (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") in a
motor vehicle accident.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 30.12.2016 at about
06.00 P.M., while the deceased and one Aravind were proceeding
from Molangur X Roads towards Keshavapatnam on a motor cycle
bearing No.AP-15-AR-9261 and when they reached the outskirts of
Molangur near Laxmiprasanna Function Hall, respondent No.3
herein drove van bearing No.KA-14-N-3810 at high speed and in a
rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle from wrong
side. As a result, the deceased, who was pillion rider, sustained
grievous injuries all over the body and died while he was shifted in
108 Ambulance to the area hospital, Huzurabad, Karimnagar District
and the police of Keshavapuram registered a case in Crime
No.183of2016. The claimants filed the aforesaid claim petition before
the Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of
the death of the deceased.
3. Before the Tribunal, the driver and owner of the van remained
ex parte. The appellant/Insurance Companyin the claim petition
denied all the averments and 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 driver of the van and that the deceased died
as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident and accordingly
awarded a total compensation of Rs.10,22,000/-, holding the insurer
and ownerof the crime vehicle as jointly and severally liable.
5. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.
6. On a careful consideration of the material placed on record, it
is evident that the Tribunal, in the absence of any documentary proof
regarding the income of the deceased, took a reasonable view in fixing
the monthly income at Rs.9,000/-, keeping in view the avocation of
the deceased, who was running a laundry shop, and the prevailing
local conditions. The contention of the appellant that the income is
on the higher side is not supported by any evidence. The appellant
did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence to rebut the
assessment made by the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal applied the
correct multiplier of '18', taking into account that the deceased was
aged 21 years at the time of the accident, and deducted 50% towards
personal and living expenses as the deceased was a bachelor, which
is in consonance with the principles laid down inSarla Verma v.
Delhi Transport Corporation 1 and followed consistently by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in similar matters. With
regard to the amounts awarded under the conventional heads, the
Tribunal granted Rs.20,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/-
towards transportation, and Rs.25,000/- towards loss of estate, love
and affection. The total amount under these heads comes to
Rs.50,000/-, which is within the permissible limits. The appellant
has not demonstrated how the said amounts exceed the permissible
limits or suffer from any legal infirmity. In the absence of any
evidence or compelling grounds to disturb the well-reasoned findings
of the Tribunal, this Court finds no basis to interfere with the
compensation awarded.
(2009) 6 SCC 121
7. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion
that the appellant has failed to establish any perversity or error in the
findings recorded by the Tribunal warranting interference by this
Court.
8. 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:25.11.2025
Bw
