IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

MACMA No.498 of 2019

DATE: 10.12.2025

Between:

HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Represented by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, 6-3-346/1, 2nd Floor,

Above Scotia Bank, Opp. Jalagam Vengal Rao Park,

Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad

…..Appellant

AND

Rothu @ Authkar @ Bavune Kalpana and three others

….Respondents

JUDGMENT:

This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,

is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company, challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 17-12-2018 passed in O.P.No.92 of 2018 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-III Additional District Judge, Asifabad (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- together with interest @ 9% per annum to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein/claimants, payable by the respondent No.3/driver, respondent No.4/owner and the appellant/Insurance Company jointly and

severally for the death of the minor boy namely B. Harsha Vardhan (‘the deceased’) in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 18-11-2017 at about 4.00 p.m., the deceased, aged about 3 years, was moving in front of his house at Muthampet Village. At that time, a Tractor & Trolley bearing Nos. TS-01-EE-1586 & AP-01-U-6594, driven by the Respondent No.3 herein in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, wearing earphones and while reversing the tractor & trailer, dashed against the deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained head injury and died on the spot. The claimants, being the parents of the deceased, filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

3. Before the Tribunal, the respondent No.4 herein filed counter, which was adopted by respondent No.3 herein, pleading that the tractor and trolley was insured with appellant/Insurance Company and that policies are in force at the time of accident and as such they are not liable to pay any compensation. The Insurance Company filed counter contending that the claimants have to prove the manner of accident, loss sustained by them due to accident and that quantum of compensation claimed by them is excessive.

4. The Tribunal, upon appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, particularly Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 which included the FIR and Charge Sheet, held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the tractor. However, the Tribunal attributed 25% contributory negligence to the respondent No.1 herein (mother) for leaving the child unattended on the road. Consequently, after assessing the compensation at Rs.5,00,000/- (based on notional income), the Tribunal deducted 25% and awarded Rs.3,75,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contended that the learned Tribunal erred in holding the Insurance Company liable. It is submitted that the driver of the offending Tractor & Trolley did not possess any driving licence at the time of the accident. It is further contended that the Police, after thorough investigation, filed Ex.A.2-Charge Sheet against the accused driver under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which confirms that the driver had no licence. It is argued that driving without a licence is a fundamental breach of the policy conditions under Section 149(2) of the Act, and therefore the Insurance Company should be exonerated from liability.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and awarded just and reasonable compensation. It is further submitted that the Tribunal, while determining the compensation, has already taken into consideration the contributory negligence on the part of the mother of the deceased and deducted 25% of the assessed