The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Mohd. Nayeemuddin
2026 Latest Caselaw 537 Tel

Telangana High Court

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Mohd. Nayeemuddin on 9 April, 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD
                            ***

                        M.A.C.M.A. No.78 of 2026

Between:

Between :
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.                      ....      Appellant

                                    And

Mohd. Nayeemuddin and two others
                                                     ....    Respondents.


                ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 09.04.2026
           THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
                               AND
             THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

1.    Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
      may be allowed to see the Judgments?            : Yes

2.    Whether the copies of judgment may be
      Marked to Law Reporters/Journals?               : Yes

3.    Whether His Lordship wishes to
      see the fair copy of the Judgment?              : Yes




                                              _____________________
                                               GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
                                                  2



           * THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
                                 AND
              THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR


                              + M.A.C.M.A. No.78 of 2026


JUDGMENT:

%Dated 09.04.2026

# Between:

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.                                             ....      Appellant

                                               And

Mohd. Nayeemuddin and two others
                                                                          ....       Respondents.


! Counsel for appellant                    : Sri A.Ramakrihna Reddy

^ Counsel for Respondents 1 & 2 : Sri Kota Subba Rao


< GIST :

> HEAD NOTE :

? Cases referred :
1. (2009) 6 SCC 121
2.(2017) SC 1050
3.(2013) 15 SCC 45
4.2022 ACJ 948
5.(2006) 4 SCC 404

7.(2021) 13 SCC 587
8.AIR 2025 SC 1882
9.(1994) 1 SCC 1
10.AIR 2004 SC 175
11.AIR 1971 SC 1865
12.2022(5) ALD 76 (SC)
13.2025 ACJ 406
14.AIR 1965 SC 1008
15.AIR 1951 SC 193

16.Order in Civil Appeal No.1589 of 2001 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.6407 of 2000 dt.26.02.2001.

17.Civil Appeal No.6100 of 2024 dated 17.03.2026

18.(2007) 4 SCC 221 : 2007 SCC OnLine SC 317

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD ***

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

Date of Order:09-04-2026

Between :

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.                                 ....      Appellant

                                        And

Mohd. Nayeemuddin and two others
                                                                ....     Respondents.

JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar)

Heard Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant and Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent

Nos.1 and 2/claimants.

2. The present Appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company

aggrieved by the order dated 01.05.2025 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1390 of 2018

by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil

Courts at Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal') awarding compensation of

Rs.3,05,80,000/- to the claimants with interest at the rate of 6% per annum

from the date of filing of the petition till realization with proportionate costs.

3. The facts leading to filing of the Claim Petition before the learned

Tribunal are that on 26.05.2017 at about 3:30 p.m., the deceased,

Mohd.Saifuddin, was traveling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing

Registration No. TS-10-EL-0668. The said motor cycle was being ridden by his

college mate, Rizwan Rasool. When they reached near Yenkapally Gate, within

the jurisdiction of Moinabad Police Station, the rider of the motor cycle lost

control over the vehicle and dashed against the road divider. As a result of the

impact, both the rider and the pillion rider sustained grievous injuries and died

on the spot. Based on the report lodged, the Police of Moinabad, Cyberabad

registered a case vide Crime No. 288 of 2017 under Sections 304-A and 337 of

the Indian Penal Code and took up investigation.

4. The claimants being the parents of the deceased filed Claim Petition

initially for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- and later, enhanced the compensation to

Rs.1,50,00,000/- stating that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged

21 years, hale and healthy, pursuing his Engineering (CSE) III Year Degree at

Global Engineering College of Science and Technology, Moinabad and was a

brilliant student, used to earn Rs.50,000/- p.m. by imparting private tuitions

and maintain his family members, and due to the sudden demise of deceased,

the claimants suffered mental agony and lost love and affection of the

deceased. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the crime vehicle having insurance

with the respondent No.2 and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent

driving of the driver of the said crime vehicle. As such, respondent Nos.1 and 2

are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- towards

compensation to the claimants.

5. The respondent No.1 in the MVOP did not contest the case and

remained ex parte. The respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed counter-

affidavit denying the narration made in the Claim Petition in relation to accident

that took place and the involvement of crime vehicle. The Insurance Company

stated that there is no rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the

motor cycle bearing No.TS-10EL-0668. The respondent No.2 also denied the

relationship between the deceased and the claimants. The respondent No.2

contended that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation

to the claimants. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. Basing on the above pleadings of both sides, the following issues were

framed for trial:

i) Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle i.e. motor cycle bearing No.TS 10 EL 0668?

ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?

iii) To what relief?

7. In order to prove the case of the claimants, PWs.1 and 2, being the

father and mother of the deceased, were examined and documentary evidence

under Exs.A.1 to A.10 were marked on their behalf. On behalf of the

respondents, no oral evidence was adduced. However, documentary evidence

under Ex.B.1 - copy of policy was marked.

8. Upon appreciating the pleadings and the evidence, both oral and

documentary adduced on behalf of parties, the learned Tribunal held that the

cross-examination of PW.1 by the counsel for respondent No.2, except denials

nothing is elicited adverse to the version of the claimants and that the

documents relied upon by the claimants under Exs.A.1 to A.10 clearly reveal

that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the crime vehicle. The Tribunal considering the age of the deceased at

the time of accident as 21 years as well as the employment Offer Letter of the

deceased marked as Ex.A-6, fixed the earnings of the deceased as

Rs.24,00,000/- per annum, that means Rs.2,00,000/- p.m.

9. The Tribunal by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Sarla Verm a v/ s. Delhi Transport Corporation 1 wherein

it was held that only three factors need to be established by the claimants for

assessing compensation in the case of death, viz., (a) age of the deceased; (b)

income of the deceased; and (c ) the number of dependents, and basing on

the evidence of PW.1 and documents under Exs.A.1 to A.5, assessed the age

of the deceased as 21 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal also

observed that the respondents vaguely questioned the truthfulness of the

averments and testimonies, but as they did not produce any contrary evidence

which would go to diminish the case of the claimants on these vital facts and

hence, took the age of the deceased as 21 years.

10. The Tribunal further relying upon the above said judgment applied '18'

multiplier. By placing reliance on the judgment in the case of National

I nsurance Com pany Lim ited v/ s. P ranay Sethi 2 , the Tribunal held that

(2009) 6 SCC 121

(2017) SC 1050

40% of the income has to be added towards future prospects which amounts

to Rs.2,80,000/- (Rs.2,00,000/- x 40%=2,80,000/-). Since the deceased was

unmarried, half of the income has to be deducted towards his personal

expenses, which would amount to Rs.1,40,000/- (Rs.2,80,000/- x 1/2). Thus,

the loss to the dependents comes to Rs.1,40,000/- per month and

Rs.16,80,000/- per annum. Since the appropriate multiplier is 18, the loss of

dependency comes to Rs.3,02,40,000/- (Rs.16,80,000/- x 18) and towards loss

of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate, an amount of Rs.40,000/-

each, 30,000/- and Rs.30,000/-, respectively was awarded. Further, the

Tribunal by placing reliance upon the judgment in M agm a General

I nsurance Com pany Lim ited v/ s. Nanu R am , awarded an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection.

11. The Tribunal by placing reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in P uttam m a and others v/ s. K .L.Narayana R eddy 3 and

Benson George v/ s. R eliance General I nsurance Com pany Lim ited 4 ,

awarded interest at 6% per annum. It was finally held that the respondent

Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the

claimants. Assailing the said order, the present Appeal is filed by the appellant-

Insurance Company.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the claimants obtained

the order and decree in their favour by playing fraud on the Court itself. It is

(2013) 15 SCC 45

2022 ACJ 948

further contended that the policy issued to the crime vehicle-motor cycle is an

'Act/liability only policy', which does not cover the liability of the person

travelling as a pillion rider on the motor cycle, since no premium is paid by the

owner to cover the risk of the pillion rider. To support the said contention, he

relied upon United I ndia I nsurance Com pany Lim ited, Shim la v/ s. Tilak

Singh 5 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even under the 1939 Act

the established legal position was that unless there was a specific coverage of

the risk pertaining to a gratuitous passenger in the policy, the insurer was not

liable.

13. It is pleaded that on the date of accident, the deceased and rider friend

were only B.Tech 1styear students, but the claimants contended that the

deceased was pursuing his B.Tech III year and got selected in Infosys through

campus placement, which is not correct and was only created by forging and

manipulating all the documents for the purpose of wrongful compensation.

14. Learned counsel further contended that Ex.A.5 Marks Memo is forged

and fabricated and created for the purpose of this case and in order to prove

the same, the appellant produced the Identity Card of the deceased with Roll

No.16U61A0521 and Bonafide Certificate issued by the Global Institute of

Engineering and Technology dated 05.10.2016, which shows that the deceased

was pursuing CSE-B.Tech from the year 2016-2020 and the accidental death of

the deceased occurred on 26.05.2017, which itself shows that the deceased

was pursuing his B.Tech I year as on the date of accident and the contention

(2006) 4 SCC 404

of the claimants that the deceased was pursuing B.Tech III year at the time of

accident is false.

15. Learned counsel further contended that in Ex.A-6 Employment Offer

Letter, it is mentioned that 'Through TATA Consultancy Md.Saifuddin was

selected for INFOSYS on a yearly salary of Rs.24,00,000/-", which is strange as

the said two Companies are rival Companies in the Software Industry and

cannot select candidates for each other.

16. Learned counsel further submitted that after the receipt of the award

and decree and after perusing the document i.e. Ex.A-6 Offer Letter, the

Investigator of the appellant-company gathered information and came to know

that the Institution like Infosys would never offer such a huge package of

Rs.24,00,000/- p.a. for a fresh Graduate, that too from normal level

Engineering Colleges situated in Hyderabad. The learned counsel urged that

the Investigator of the appellant company gathered information that Infosys

had not made any offer to Md.Saifuddin with ID No.57196834, as the

candidate registered with the said ID was Mrs.Namrata Biswas of Kolkata, as

such, the claimants have made a false claim.

17. Learned counsel averred that only after receipt of the award the

appellant company came to know about the fraud played by the claimants and

immediately all possible steps have been taken and documents were secured.

The non filing of the above said documents at the time of trial is neither willful

nor wanton.

18. During pendency of the Appeal, an application under Order 41 Rule 27

read with Section 151 CPC is filed by the petitioner/appellant to receive the

documents relating to the deceased viz., Md.Saifuddin i.e. (i) copy of College

identity card, (ii) Bonafide certificate dated 05.10.2016, (iii) SSC Memo dated

17.05.2013, (iv) Case Dairy Part-II in FIR No.253 of 2017 of Police Station

Moinabad, Cyberabad, Hyderabad recording the statements of L.Ws.1 to 6, (v)

Ration Card issued to Mohd. Nayeemuddin and his family, (vi) Letter received

from Infosys, Bangalore dated 08.10.2025, (vii) RTA Application dated

25.08.2025 and (viii) Investigation Report dated 04.08.2025 and 24.10.2025

contending that the documents now sought to be filed are very much

necessary to prove the fraud played by the claimants with the Court and the

public institution like the appellant-Insurance Company. On thorough

examination of the matter, the said IA was allowed and the documents filed by

the appellant are taken on record vide order dated 02.03.2026 passed in

I.A.No.4 of 2026.

19. Learned counsel taking the totality of the circumstances and by reading

the statements of LWs.1 to 6 along with additional documentary evidence

finally contended that the deceased was studying B.Tech I year at the time of

accident without there being any employment and that Ex.A.5 Marks Memo

and Ex.A6 Employment Offer Letter are created and concocted and produced

only for the purpose of claiming wrongful compensation. Accordingly, he prays

for dismissal of the OP.