SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Telangana) 93

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J.
The National Insurance Company Limited, Nizamabad Branch - Appellant
Vs.
Madaboina Nirmala And Another - Respondents
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.127, 128 and 385 of 2020
Decided On : 23-01-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SURYA BALU MAHENDRA

Claims under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act are maintainable for fatalities involving occupants of the insured vehicle, allowing strict statutory liability without proving negligence.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 163-A - Claim petitions for compensation arising from a motor accident resulting in two fatalities - Distinction between the liability of third-party claims and occupants of the insured vehicle - The Court affirmed that claims under Section 163-A are maintainable regardless of fault, adopting an expansive interpretation of 'arising out of the use of motor vehicle'. The provisions provide compensation on a structured formula basis without establishing negligence (Paras 17, 19, 22).

(B) Compensation - The Tribunal applied the Second Schedule without proper proof of income, thus determining compensation accordingly - Total enhanced compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- awarded with 9% interest per annum. (Para 25)

Facts of the case:
The accident occurred on 26/27.10.2023, leading to the death of two brothers while riding a motorcycle hit by an unknown vehicle (Paras 2-6).

Findings of Court:
The earlier awards were found unsustainable under law, and based on the Second Schedule provisions, compensation was recalculated and enhanced (Para 26).

Issues: (I) Whether a claim under Section 163-A is maintainable for occupants of the insured vehicle? (II) Can the insurer deny liability due to absence of a driving licence in such claims? (III) Is the claim petition defective due to non-joinder of necessary parties? (IV) Are the compensation amounts awarded by the Tribunal legally justified?

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that Section 163-A's non obstante clause allows for claims without proving wrongful acts or negligence and the broader interpretation includes all accident victims, thereby rejecting insurer's claims for fault-based defences.

Result: MACMAs 127 and 128 dismissed; MACMA 385 allowed in part, enhancing compensation to Rs.5,50,000/-.

Table of Content
1. overview of the accident and claims filed. (Para 2 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
2. details of the appeals and parties involved. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. arguments presented by the insurer and claimants. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
4. court's analysis of claim maintainability under section 163-a. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
5. court's rationale on the insurer's defences and calculation of compensation. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
6. conclusion and ruling on the compensation awarded. (Para 25 , 26)

JUDGMENT :

G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J.

Since the issues involved in these appeals are one and the same, both the appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The present dispute arises out of a tragic motor accident that occurred on 26/27.10.2023, resulting in death of two brothers, namely, Madaboina Gangaraju, (deceased No.1) and Madaboina Sai Prasad (deceased No.2).

3. M.A.C.M.A.Nos.127 and 128 of 2020 have been filed by the National Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the insurer’), assailing the awards dated 11.09.2018 passed in O.P.Nos.586 and 587 of 2014 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (for short, ‘Tribunal’).

4. M.A.C.M.A. No.385 of 2020 has been preferred by the mother and wife of deceased No.1 (hereinafter referred to as “the claimants”), seeking enhancement of compensation awarded in O.P.No.586 of 2014.

5. Heard Sri N.S.Bhaskar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant in MACMA No.127 and 128 of 2020 and respondent in MACMA No.385 of 2020 and Sri Ambedkar Sridhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Surya Balu Mahendra, learned counsel for respondents/claimants in MACMA Nos.127 and 128 of 2020 and appellants in MACMA No.385 of 2020.

Factual matrix (in brief)

6. On the intervening night of 26/27.10.2013, deceased No.1 aged about 29 years, and deceased No.2 aged about 20 years, were travelling on a motorcycle bearing Registration No. AP 25 AN 1810, owned by Panchal Prakash i.e., respondent No.3 in MACMA Nos.127 and 128, proceeding from their native Village Birkur towards Nizamabad. At about 1:15 AM, when the motorcycle reached near Laxmi Medical “X” Road, Pedda Bazar, Nizamabad, an unknown vehicle, driven at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite direction and violently dashed against the motorcycle. The offending vehicle fled the scene immediately after the accident.

7. The impact of the collision was severe, wherein deceased No.2 sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Deceased No.1 suffered grievous injuries, including serious head and leg injuries, and was immediately shifted to the Government Hospital, Nizamabad, where he underwent treatment. Despite prolonged medical care, deceased No.1 succumbed to the injuries on 27.03.2014.

8. In respect of the said accident, the Police, Nizamabad, registered Crime No.108 of 2013 under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the driver of the unknown offending vehicle.

9. The motorcycle bearing No. AP 25 AN 1810 was admittedly insured with the Insurer Company under a comprehensive insurance policy bearing No.35100731126203575040, valid for the period from 30.03.2013 to 29.03.2014, covering the date of the accident.

10. Consequent upon the deaths arising out of the said accident, the legal representatives of the deceased instituted claim petitions. O.P.No.586 of 2014 was filed by the mother and wife of deceased No.1, claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- on account of his death, whereas O.P.No.587 of 2014 was filed by the mother of deceased No.2 alone, claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for his death.

11. Both claim petitions were tried jointly. The Tribunal by a common judgment dated 11.09.2018 has awarded compensation as under:

i. In O.P.No.586 of 2014, a sum of Rs.5,23,333/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization;

ii. In O.P.No.587 of 2014, a sum of Rs.5,36,667/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of peti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top