IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY
United India Insurance Co.Ltd – Appellant
Versus
B. Hanumantha Reddy – Respondent
MACMA 309/2019
##PAGE1##
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.309of 2019
DATE: 23.12.2025
Between:
United India Insurance Company Limited.
….. Appellant/Respondent No.3
AND
Sri B. Hanumantha Reddy and five others.
….Respondents
JUDGMENT:
This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company, challenging the
award dated 16.10.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.293 of 2016 by the
Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XII Additional Chief
Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad (hereinafter referred to as
“the Tribunal”), whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of
Rs.6,93,750/- together with interest @ 9% per annum to be
payable by the driver, owner and insurance company jointly and
severally for the death of one Ramulamma (hereinafter referred to
as “the deceased”) in a motor vehicle accident.
##PAGE2##2
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 25.01.2016 at about
8:00 p.m., the deceased Ramulammawas proceeding as a pillion
rider on a motorcycle bearing No.AP-25-8245, along with her two
sons and when they reached NH-65 near IIT, Kandi Village, Medak
District, the motorcycle allegedly collided with the rear side of a
stationary lorry bearing No.AP-25X-2439, which was loaded with
sugarcane and parked without any indication, parking lights or
precautions. As a result of the collision, the deceased and her sons
sustained injuries and were shifted first to Government Hospital,
Sangareddy and later to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad,
where Ramulamma succumbed to her injuries on 26.01.2016. The
Police, Sanga Reddy Police Station, also registered a case in Crime
No.28 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 304-A and 338 of
IPC against the driver of the lorry. The claimants, being husband
and children of the deceased,filed the aforesaid claim petition
before the Tribunalclaiming compensation of Rs.9,00,000/-.
3. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the oral and documentary
evidence, held that the accident was caused due to negligent
parking of the lorry; there was contributory negligence on the part
of the motorcycle rider by way of triple riding, which was fixed
at 25% and awarded the claimants a total compensation
of Rs.6,93,750/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing
##PAGE3##3
petition till realisation, holding all respondents jointly and severally
liable.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company
vehemently contended that the Tribunal erred in attributing
only 25% contributory negligence to the rider of the motorcycle and
fixing the liability of the lorry driver at 75%, despite admitted triple
riding and contributory negligence on the part of the deceased’s
rider; the income of the deceased (housewife) was wrongly taken
at Rs.6,000/- per month and additional 25% for future
prospectswas erroneously added since it was a notional income;
the Tribunal erred in awarding interest at 9% per annum;
and the overall award of Rs.6,93,750/- was excessive and
unreasonable.
5. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
appellant and perused the record.
6. So far as contributory negligence is concerned, the Tribunal
found that the accident occurred on 25.01.2016 when the
deceased (as pillion rider on a motorcycle with two others) collided
with the rear side of a parked lorry bearing No.AP-25X-2439, which
had no parking lights or precautions. The driver of the lorry
remained ex parte and the appellant-insurance company admitted
the policy was in force. Therefore, this Court finds that the
##PAGE4##4
Tribunal rightly concluded that the negligent parking of the lorry
was the proximate cause and that triple riding was contributory,
which justified attributing 25% contributory negligence to the
rider.
7. With respect to the income of the deceased, the Tribunal
thoroughly examined the material on record and rightly treated the
deceased as a housewifewith notional income for the purpose of
computing loss of dependency. Since the evidence did not
substantiate a regular earn
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.