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.383 of 2019 DATE: 09.01.2026 Between:

IFFICO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, Karimnagar.

…..Appellant AND Shabana Parveen @ SK. Shabana and six others.

….Respondents

JUDGMENT:

The appellant-insurance company has filed this appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the judgment and decree dated 01.10.2018 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nizamabad (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in M.V.O.P. No.11 of 2016, whereby compensation of Rs.16,82,800/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum was awarded to the claimants i.e., respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein, for the death of Shaik Rasheed (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 29.10.2015, at about 11:00 a.m., while the deceased was proceeding on motorcycle bearing No.TS 16 EA 3320 from Borgaon to Nizamabad, along with his wife Shabana and two children as pillion riders, a Bolero pickup jeep bearing No.MH 09 CU 4607 being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner, lost control, and collided with the motorcycle. As a result of the collision, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and was taken to Government Hospital, Umarkhed, where he was declared dead. The police of Maygaon Police Station registered a case in Crime No.234 of 2015 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC. Stating that prior to the accident, the deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- per month by doing Hamali and labour work, that they were depending on the income of the deceased and that due to the sudden demise of the deceased, they lost love and affection and financial support of the deceased, the claimants being wife, children and parents of the deceased filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.18,00,000/-.

3. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 i.e., the owner of the Bolero jeep (respondent No.7 herein) remained ex parte. Respondent No.2-insurance company i.e., the appellant herein filed counter denying the allegations and contended that the petition was not maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary parties, as the accident involved both the Bolero jeep and the motorcycle, and therefore the owner and insurer of the motorcycle also ought to have been made parties. It was further stated that the driver of the jeep was not impleaded and did not hold a valid driving licence at the time of the accident, that the accident was caused solely due to the rash and negligent riding of the deceased on the motorcycle, and thus prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. The Tribunal, after considering evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Bolero pick-up jeep driver and awarded a total compensation of Rs.16,82,800/-, in favour of the claimants i.e., respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein, together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization payable by the respondents therein jointly and severally. Challenging the same, the appellant-insurance company filed the present appeal.

5. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. A careful examination of the record reveals that the Tribunal’s finding that the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of the Bolero pick-up jeep driver is supported by credible evidence, including testimony from the deceased’s wife and an independent eyewitness, as well as the FIR and charge-sheet and no contrary evidence has been placed before this Court to rebut that finding.

Accordingly, the said finding of the Tribunal on negligence is sustained.

7. So far as the liability is concerned, the appellant’s contention that it should not be liable because the driver of the insured vehicle did not hold a valid driving licence is not a sustainable defence to