[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Smt. Tohrabi , Taherabee on 13 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.934 AND 2910 OF 2019
DATE: 13.04.2026
M.A.C.M.A.No.934 of 2019:
Between:
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited.
Represented by its Branch Manager, (Agency Operations),
Saphire Square, 3rd Floor, 6-8-885/7,
Somajiguda Circle, Hyderabad.
.....Appellant
AND
Smt. Tohrabi @ Taherabee and six others
....Respondents
M.A.C.M.A.No.2910 of 2019:
Between:
Smt. Tohrabi @ Taherabee and five others
.....Appellant
AND
T. Ajay Kumar and another
....Respondents
COMMON JUDGMENT
These two appeals arise out of the award dated 29.03.2019
passed in M.V.O.P.No.1238 of 2013 by the Chairman, Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for
short, "the Tribunal"), whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of
Rs.6,02,700/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of the
claimants, for the death of Syed Razzaq (for short "the deceased") in a
motor vehicle accident. MACMA.No.934 of 2019 filed by the Insurance
Company is directed against fastening of liability and quantum of
compensation, whereas MACMA.No.2910 of 2019 filed by the
claimants seeks enhancement of compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties will be
referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 20.01.2013 at about 7:30
pm, while the deceased was proceeding on foot, a Mahindra Duro
motorcycle bearing No.AP-09-CD-8243, driven in a rash and negligent
manner, dashed him from behind, resulting in grievous injuries.
Despite treatment, he succumbed to injuries on 25.01.2013. The
claimants, being the legal representatives of the deceased, filed the
aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.9,00,000/-. The
Tribunal, upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence came
to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the said motorcycle and awarded a total
compensation of Rs.6,02,700/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum
fastening liability jointly and severally on the owner and insurer.
Aggrieved thereby, both the claimants and the Insurance Company
preferred the present appeals.
4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Insurance
Company contended that the involvement of the insured vehicle is
doubtful; that there is discrepancy between the FIR and charge sheet;
that the deceased might have suffered injuries due to a fall as
indicated in the medical record; and that the compensation awarded
by the Tribunal is excessive.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants contended
that the Tribunal erred in fixing a low income, failed to award just
compensation under various heads, and sought enhancement of
compensation.
6. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and
perused the material on record.
7. Insofar as the contention of the Insurance Company regarding
involvement of the vehicle is concerned, the same cannot be accepted.
The Tribunal has rightly relied upon the charge sheet filed after due
investigation, wherein the driver of the offending vehicle was
prosecuted. Merely because the FIR initially mentioned an unknown
vehicle, it cannot be a ground to discard the subsequent investigation
which clearly fixed the involvement of the insured vehicle. The
postmortem report also establishes that the death occurred due to
head injuries sustained in the accident. Therefore, the finding of the
Tribunal on negligence and involvement of the vehicle does not
warrant any interference.
8. With regard to the objection based on the medical record
suggesting a fall, the Tribunal has rightly observed that such a stray
entry cannot outweigh the consistent oral and documentary evidence
pointing towards a road traffic accident. No cogent evidence was
placed by the Insurance Company to substantiate its plea. Hence, the
liability fastened on the insurer is proper.
9. Coming to quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has taken
the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/-, which, in the
considered opinion of this Court, is on the lower side, having regard to
the fact that the deceased was engaged in scrap business and the
accident occurred in the year 2013 . Therefore, the monthly income of
the deceased is reasonably re-fixed at Rs.7,000/-. As the deceased
was aged about 55 years, an addition of 10% towards future prospects
is warranted. Accordingly, 10% of Rs.7,000/- i.e., Rs.700/- is added,
making the monthly income Rs.7,700/-. The annual income thus
comes to Rs.7,700/- × 12 = Rs.92,400/-. Towards personal and living
expenses, 1/5th is deducted, as adopted by the Tribunal, which comes
to Rs.15,840/- (i.e., 1/5th of Rs.79,200/-). The contribution to the
family is therefore Rs.73,920/- per annum (Rs.92,400/- -
Rs.18,480/-). Applying the appropriate multiplier '11' applicable to
the age group of 51-55 years, the loss of dependency works out to
Rs.73,920/- × 11 = Rs.8,13,120/-. In addition to that, in view of the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi 1, the appellants-claimants are entitled to
Rs.91,000/- (Rs.70,000/- + 10% enhancement for every three years)
under the conventional heads. Thus the appellants/claimants are
entitled to a total compensation of Rs.9,04,120/- (Rs.8,13,120/- +
Rs.91,000/-), which is rounded off to Rs.9,00,000/- (the amount
claimed by the claimants in the O.P).
10. Resultantly, MACMA.No.934 of 2019 filed by the Insurance
Company is dismissed and MACMA.No.2910 of 2019 filed by the
claimants is allowed by enhancing the compensation granted by the
Tribunal from Rs.6,02,720/- to Rs.9,00,000/- with interest @ 7.5%
from the date of petition till realization. The remaining terms and
conditions of the Tribunal shall stand unaltered. There shall be no
order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
Date: 13.04.2026
JSU
1(2017) 16 SCC 680
