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.No.651 of 2019

DATE: 06.01.2026

Between:

Nethi Saidulu.

…..Appellant

AND

N.Sathyanarayana and another.

….Respondents

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the appellant-claimant, under Section

173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, aggrieved by the award dated 17.12.2018 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Sessions Judge for Trial of S.C.s/S.T.s (POA) Cases-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Nalgonda (for short, “the Tribunal”) in M.V.O.P.No.286 of 2013, whereby the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 70,000/- with proportionate costs and interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date of petition till

the date of realization.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 23.12.2012 at about 4:30 PM, the appellant was travelling in the auto bearing

registration No. AP-24-X-8690 of respondent No.1 from Narketpally to go to his destination, the driver of the said vehicle drove in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and on the way, when the auto reached the outskirts of Chinathummalagudem village, the driver lost control, and the auto turned turtle. As a result, the appellant sustained grievous injuries and fractures. The appellant filed the aforesaid O.P. against respondent No.1-owner of the auto and respondent No.2-Insurance Company claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-.

3. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1-owner of the vehicle remained ex parte and respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed a counter, denying the averments of the claim petition, contending that the driver lacked a valid driving license, the auto was overloaded, and the compensation claimed was excessive.

4. The Tribunal, upon appreciation of the evidence, held that the appellant sustained injuries in the accident due to the negligent driving of respondent No.1’s vehicle. It further held that respondent No.2 was the insurer under a valid policy and, hence the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal also observed that the auto was overcrowded (more than four passengers, even up to ten, based on the cross-examination of PW-1) and thus held the appellant partially liable, fixing a contributory negligence of 30% on the part of the appellant. The Tribunal assessed the total just compensation at Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.50,000/- towards special damages and Rs. 50,000/- towards general damages), from which it deducted 30% (Rs. 30,000/-) for contributory negligence, thereby awarding a final compensation of Rs.70,000/-.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meagre and the Tribunal ought to have awarded the claimed amount of Rs.2,50,000/-, and it erred in not considering the 40% permanent disability certificate (Ex.A-4). It is further contended that the Tribunal erred in finding contributory negligence and ultimately prayed to allow the appeal.

6. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company supported the impugned award passed by the Tribunal and ultimately prayed to dismiss the appeal.

7. In Sushma vs. Nitin Ganapati Rangole & Others, 2024 INSC 706, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:

“18. In the case of Union of India v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., ((1997) 8 SCC 683) this Court dealt with the question whether the driver’s negligence in any manner vicariously attaches to the passengers of the motor vehicle of which he was the driver, and it was held as below: -

10. There is a well-known principle in the law of torts called the “doctrine of identification” or “imputation”. It is to the effect that the defendant can plead the contributory negligence of the plaintiff or of an employee of the plaintiff where the employee is acting in the course of employment. But, it has been also held in Mills v. Armstrong [(1888) 13 AC 1, HL] (also called The Bernina case) that that principle is not applicable to a pas