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.845of 2019 DATE: 07.01.2026 Between:

National Insurance Company Limited and another.

….. Appellants AND Chippalapally Bikshapathi and another.

….Respondents

JUDGMENT:

This appeal has been filed by the appellants/Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 03.04.2007, passed in M.V.O.P.No.1346 of 2005 on the file of the III Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Warangal (for short, “the Tribunal”), whereby, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.2,75,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. The Tribunal further directed the appellants/Insurance Company to deposit the awarded amount and permitted them to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 29.03.2005, the deceased namely Chippalapally Laxmi, along with other passengers, boarded a Bajaj Tempo Trax Toofan bearing No. AP 24 V 3080 at Hanamkonda to go to Jangaon. When the vehicle reached near Raghunathpally Police Station, its driver drove it in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against an APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 10 Z 6671 coming from the opposite direction. As a result of the collision, the deceased sustained head and multiple other injuries and died. On a complaint, the Raghunathpally Police registered a case against the driver of the Tempo Trax. The respondent No.1/claimant, who is the husband of the deceased, filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.

3. Before the Tribunal, the Insurance Company contested the claim, denying the material allegations and specifically contending that the offending vehicle was overloaded in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and an eye-witness as P.W.2, and marked Exs.A.1 to A.9. The Tribunal, on evaluating the evidence, particularly the charge sheet (Ex.A.9) and the evidence of the eye-witness (P.W.2), found that 14 persons were traveling in the vehicle against a seating capacity of 11+1. While holding that the Insurance Company was not strictly liable due to the violation of policy conditions, the Tribunal applied the principle of "pay and recover" and directed the insurer to deposit the compensation and then recover it from the owner.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants-Insurance Company has primarily contended that the Tribunal erred in fastening liability on the Insurance Company even for the purpose of "pay and recover," given the clear breach of the permit and policy conditions regarding overloading. It is further argued that the respondent No.1/husband was not dependent on the deceased and that the compensation awarded was excessive.

5. Having considered the submissions and perused the record, this Court finds that the findings of the Tribunal regarding the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle are well-supported by the FIR, Inquest Panchanama, and Charge Sheet. Regarding the quantum, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month considering her services as a housewife. After deducting 1/3^rdtowards personal expenses and applying the multiplier of ‘15’ based on the age of the deceased, the loss of dependency was calculated at Rs.2,40,000/-. Adding conventional heads, the total entitlement was found to be Rs.3,75,000/-, but since the claim was limited, the Tribunal awarded Rs.2,75,000/-. This Court is of the view that the principle of "pay and recover" is well-settled in cases of policy violations involving third-party claims. The Tribunal has correctly exercised its discretion in directing the Insurance Company to satisfy the award and recover the same from the owner (Respondent No.2 herein). There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order and decree re