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.206 of 2019

DATE: 04.12.2025

Between:

The National Insurance Company Limited,

Rep. by its Branch Manager.

…..Appellant

AND

Arkuti Mohan and two others

….Respondents

JUDGMENT:

The appellant-insurance company preferred this appeal, under

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) challenging the order and decree dated 15.04.2015 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Godavarikhani (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in O.P.No.168 of 2012 whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- together with interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of the claimants i.e., respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, being the parents of the deceased-Late Arkuti Kumara

Swamy, who died in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 08.07.2010, the deceased, aged about 25 years, along with his friend A.Kathaiah went to Peddapally on Hero Honda Passion Plus motorcycle bearing No.AP- 15-AJ-7957 and while returning, an unknown vehicle allegedly dashed against the motorcycle from opposite direction. As a result of the collision, the deceased and his pillion rider fell down, sustained injuries, and the deceased died on the spot. A criminal case was also registered as Crime No.84 of 2010 by the Basanthnagar Police for the offences under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC in relation to the accident. Stating that the deceased was unmarried, employed at a petrol-bunk earning Rs.5,000/- per month and due to his sudden demise, they lost love and affection and also his support and contribution to the family, the claimants i.e., the parents of the deceased filed the aforesaid claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.

3. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 i.e., owner of the vehicle entered appearance but did not chose to file counter. Respondent No.2-insurance company contested the claim on the grounds that the deceased drove the motor cycle in a drunken condition; he did not possess a valid driving licence; and hence, insisted that the claim under Section 163-A of the Act was not maintainable, as the deceased was not a third-party but the owner/driver of the vehicle and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

4. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties and perusing oral and documentary evidence, awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit in favour of the claimants i.e., respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein and joint and several liability was fastened on the owner and the insurer of the motor vehicle. Challenging the same, the appellant-

insurance company filed the present appeal.

5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant- insurance company vehemently contended that the Tribunal committed a fundamental error in placing liability on the insurer; the claim under the Act, in particular invoking Section 163-A thereof, was not maintainable in the facts of the case, because the deceased himself was owner of the vehicle and responsible for the accident; a person driving the vehicle cannot be treated as a “third party” for the purposes of Section 163-A; and, in the present case, there was also evidence that the deceased was driving under the influence of alcohol and without a valid driving licence at the time of accident, which constitute breach of policy conditions and disentitle the insurer from indemnifying for the accident. In support of his contentions, learned Standing Counsel placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajni Devi, 1( 2009) 2 SCC 417 and Ningamma and another vs. United India Insurance Company Limited, (2009) 13 SCC 710 and prayed for setting aside the impugned award passed by the Tribunal.

6. On the other hand, learn