IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA &

Date of Order : 07.01.2026 BETWEEN:

M/s Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd.

… Appellant And Shaik Sardar Pasha and three others … Respondents

COMMON JUDGMENT:

M.A.C.M.A.No.458 of 2020 is filed by the M/s.Cholamandalam M.S.General Insurance Company Limited and Cross Objection No.31 of 2020 is filed by the Claimants being aggrieved and unsatisfied against the Award and decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum-IV-Additional District Judge, (FTC), Sathupalli, (hereinafter referred to ‘learned Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.49 of 2012, dated 27.01.2020.

2. Heard Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the Insurance Company and Sri Nageswara Rao Repakula, learned counsel for claimants. Perused the entire material on record.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

4. The brief facts in the said accident, the driver and cleaner of the claimant’s lorry sustained injuries and the driver of the offending lorry died on the spot. Wyra Police registered a case in Crime No.11 of 2011 under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC. After investigation, final report was filed attributing negligence to the driver of the offending vehicle. Claiming that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry and that substantial damage was caused to the claimant’s vehicle resulting in financial loss, the claimant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. During the pendency of the claim petition, the original claimant died i.e., Sri Shaik Sardar Pasha, thereafter Shaik Sardar Pasha’s wife and daughter were brought on record as legal representatives by allowing I.A. under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC.

5. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent No.1 – Owner of the offending vehicle remained ex-parte. Respondent No.2 – Insurance Company filed counter denying negligence, disputing ownership of the damaged vehicle, quantum of loss, validity of bills and liability, and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. Basing on the pleadings, the learned Tribunal relating to negligence, entitlement and quantum of compensation framed the following issues.

“1.whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of lorry bearing number AP 20 X 1899 On 03.02.2011

2. whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation if so to what amount and from whom ?

3. To what relief.? ”

7. In support of the claim, PW.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. Exs.A1 to A4 consists of FIR, final report and other criminal records. Ex.A5 consists of repair bills. Ex.A6 consists of photographs. On behalf of the Insurance Company, no oral evidence was adduced;

however, Ex.B1 insurance policy was marked by consent.

8. During cross-examination, PW.1 admitted that no Registration Certificate or RTA extract of the damaged vehicle was filed, no surveyor report was produced, and no mechanic was examined to prove Ex.A5 repair bills. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry. However, noticing lack of strict proof regarding repair expenditure and loss of income, the learned Tribunal awarded notional compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum, fastening joint and several liability on the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

9. Aggrieved by the said Award and decree, dated 27.01.2020, the Insurance Company filed the main appeal i.e., MACMA No.458 of 2020 seeking to set aside the Award and , while the claimants filed Cross Objection No.31 of 2021 seeking enhancement of compensation.

10. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding compensation despite the claimants’ failure to prove ownership of the damaged