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.274 of 2019

DATE: 08.12.2025

Between:

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Represented by its Manager,

T.P. Claims Hub, 3rd Floor,

Snehalatha Complex, Green Lands,

Begumpet, Hyderabad

…..Appellant

AND

NomulaLaxmi and five others

….Respondents

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the appellant-insurance company, under

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act’), aggrieved by the order and decree dated 17.08.2018 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (for short, “the Tribunal”) in M.V.O.P.No.2053 of 2013, whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.13,39,450/- with interestat 6% per annum in favour of the

claimants i.e., respondents Nos.1 to 5 herein.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 14.04.2013 at about 19:30 hours, a collision occurred involving a Hero Honda Passion Plus bearing

No. AP 28 AK 7963 being driven by the deceased and the Honda Activa No. AP-29 H 1066 (the crime vehicle) allegedly driven by one J. Sridhar Reddy, owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2. The accident occurred near Bharat Nagar Flyover while proceeding from Moosapet towards Ameerpet due to which the deceased and riders sustained injuries. The deceased was initially treated and admitted at Indo US Hospital, Ameerpet and subsequently shifted to Gandhi Hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries on 16.04.2013. A criminal case, vide Crime No.213 of 2013, was registered under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC on the file of Sanathnagar Police Station. Claiming that prior to the accident, the deceased used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month working as a Levolor in XL Services, Ameerpet and the claimants i.e., wife, children and mother are solely depending on the earnings of the deceased and due to the sudden death of the deceased, they lost his income, love and affection, they filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in the said accident.

3. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed separate counters, denying the age, avocation and earnings of the deceased. It was further stated that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and therefore, the claimants are not entitled for compensation and accordingly sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. The Tribunal, after considering the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and the documentary evidence i.e., Exs.A1 to A9, held that the deceased died in the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased and the rider of the crime vehicle and at the ratio of 30:70 and accordingly, awarded Rs.13,39,450/- towards compensation with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization, payable by the respondent No.6 herein and appellant herein jointly and severally.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record.

6. On a careful reappraisal of the evidence and documents, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal’s finding that the insured vehicle was at fault is supported by credible evidence and cannot be disturbed. On behalf of the claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and their evidence consistently attributes rash driving to the insured vehicle. Neither the owner nor insurer adduced any evidence to rebut the same. In the absence of any such material, there is no basis to accept the plea of sole negligence on the part of the deceased. Accordingly, the finding of the Tribunal on liability, including the apportionment (30:70), cannot be faulted.

7. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal, taking into consideration the salary certificate (Ex.A-7) produced by the claimants, fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.11,900/- per month, applied appropriate multiplier and added future prospects and after deducting