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.614 of 2019 DATE: 03.12.2025 Between:

P. Rameshwar Reddy …..Appellant/Petitioner AND Pramod Rajanand another ….Respondents

JUDGMENT:

This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is filed by the appellant challenging the award dated 31.07.2014 passed in M.V.O.P.No.31 of 2010 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum–X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, through which the Tribunal dismissed the claim for compensation towards damage caused to the appellant’s Ford Ikon car in a road accident on 12.01.2009.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 12.01.2009 at about 11:00 p.m., he was travelling in his Ford Ikon car bearing No.AP-10-Q-1080 from his native place to Hyderabad and when he reached near Bapughat, Langer House, a Maruti Swift car bearing No.AP-10-AF-4436, driven at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and dashed his vehicle. As a result, the Ford Ikon sustained extensive damage. A report was lodged with Langer House Police, who made G.D. entry against the driver of the offending Swift car. It is stated that the damaged car was shifted to Fortune Automobile (India) Pvt. Ltd., where the estimate for repairs was assessed at Rs.96,536.95. According to the appellant, the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the Swift car driver and he claimed a sum of Rs.1,00,000 towards compensation.

3. Respondent No.1-owner of the offending vehicle, remained ex parte. Respondent No.2–Insurance Company filed a counter denying negligence on the part of the Swift car driver. It was contended that the driver of the Ford Ikon did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and therefore contravened the provisions of the M.V.Act and policy conditions. It was also pleaded that the appellant did not hold a valid insurance policy for his own vehicle, had failed to adhere to mandatory procedures for assessment of the damage, and therefore the claim was not maintainable.

4. After trial, the Tribunal dismissed the O.P. on the grounds that the damage to the Ford Ikon was never assessed by a qualified and licenced surveyor as required under IRDA norms and policy conditions; that the appellant failed to produce the complete photographs of the damaged parts; that several documents lacked credibility and appeared fabricated; and that the insurer of the appellant’s own vehicle was not impleaded as a necessary party. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the claimant filed the present appeal.

5. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the record.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence on record, particularly the fact that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the insured Swift car. It is further contended that the Tribunal wrongly insisted upon a report of a qualified and licenced surveyor, even though the workshop estimate issued by Fortune Automobile (India) Pvt. Ltd. clearly reflected the extent of damage. It is submitted that once the offending vehicle was found negligent, the insurer of that vehicle was bound to indemnify the loss to the extent assessed by the workshop. It is further submitted that the Tribunal adopted an unduly technical approach in rejecting the claim only for want of a surveyor’s report, especially when the appellant could not undertake repairs for lack of funds, and therefore the dismissal of the claim is unsustainable.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.2– Insurance Company supported the award and submitted that the appellant never followed the procedure contemplated under the policy or the IRDA regulations. It is argued that the insurer was not informed of the accident, the vehicle was not produced for inspection, and no licenced surveyor was appointed to assess the loss and therefore, the Tribunal rightly re