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.552 of 2019 DATE: 02.12.2025 Between:

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through its Branch Manager, New Bus Stand Main Road, Sanga Reddy.

…..Appellant AND M. Vijaya Durga and two others.

….Respondents

JUDGMENT:

This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant–insurance company assailing the order and decree dated 31.08.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.23 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum–Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, whereby the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.9,09,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum in favour of the respondents–claimants for the death of the deceased-Smt.M.Venkata Laxmi.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 02.11.2015 at about 11.00 a.m., the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing No.AP-23-AJ-0754 driven by one M. Laxmaiah from Jogipet towards Madananda Ashram at Thoguta. When the motorcycle reached within the limits of Korvipally village, the rider drove the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and applied sudden brake, due to which the deceased fell down on the road and sustained grievous head and facial injuries. She was shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad, where she succumbed to the injuries. A case in Crime No.107 of 2015 was registered at Shankarampet Police Station. Stating that the deceased was hale and healthy, aged about 43 years and used to earn Rs.7,000/- per month, the respondent Nos.1 and 2/claimants filed the aforesaid O.P seeking compensation of Rs.14,00,000/- against the respondent No.3 and the appellant/Insurance Company.

3. Before the Tribunal, the respondent No.3/owner-cum-driver of the motorcycle filed counter and contended that the crime vehicle is validly insured and that there was no violation and as such, prayed to fasten the liability on the Insurance Company alone. The appellant–insurance company filed counter and contended that there was no rash and negligent driving by the driver of the crime vehicle and that the compensation claimed is excessive and ultimately, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

4. The Tribunal, after conducting full-fledged trial and on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle. Relying on Ex.A2-charge sheet and other documents, the Tribunal rejected the defence raised by the insurance company and held that the insurer failed to establish breach of policy conditions. The Tribunal assessed the monthly contribution of the deceased at Rs.7,000/-, applied multiplier ‘14’, and awarded compensation of Rs.9,09,000/- under various heads with interest at 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the fastening of liability and the quantum awarded, the insurance company filed the present appeal.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant–insurance company contended that the Tribunal committed error in relying on Ex.A2– charge sheet. It is argued that the Investigating Officer did not conduct proper investigation and mechanically blamed the rider. It is contended that the deceased slipped on her own due to imbalance and that there was no negligence on the part of the rider. It is further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and prayed to reduce the same.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants supported the impugned award and submitted that Ex.A2 clearly discloses that the Investigating Officer, after thorough investigation, concluded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle rider. It is contended that the insurer did not produce a single document or witness to prove breach of policy conditions or to discredit the evidence on record. It is further contended that the income, age and depen