IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY MACMA No.408 of 2019 DATE: 12.12.2025 Between:

Cholamandalam General Insurance Co.Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, Vijayawada, M.G. Road, Beside Kotak Mahindra Bank, Vijayawada-520010.

…..Appellant AND Talluri Yashoda and three others ….Respondents

JUDGMENT:

This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”), is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company, challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 09.11.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.223 of 2017 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-District Judge at Khammam (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.9,77,200/- together with interest @ 7.5% per annum to respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein/claimants, payable by respondent No.4/owner and the appellant/Insurance Company jointly and severally for the death of the deceased-T. Ramulu in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 02.09.2014 at about 10.45 PM, when the deceased, was walking on the by-pass road near District Media Office, Khammam, a lorry bearing No.AP-16-TX-3767 allegedly driven in a rash and negligent manner, ran over the deceased causing injuries and he died instantaneously. The Police, Khammam Traffic Police Station, registered Crime No.439 of 2014 under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the lorry. Stating that the deceased was 25 years old and working as a coolie earning Rs.9,000/ per month and on account of his sudden demise, they are deprived of the contribution of the deceased, the claimants, being the wife, daughter and mother of the deceased respectively, filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- against the owner and insurer of the lorry.

3. Before the Tribunal, the respondent No.1-owner of the lorry remained ex parte. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company (appellant herein) filed counter not only denying the involvement of the lorry in the accident, the rash and negligent driving, the age, avocation and earning of the deceased, but also contended that the driver of the lorry was not holding any licence and therefore the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal, upon appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver and awarded compensation of Rs.9,77,200/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum to respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein/claimants, payable by respondent No.4/owner and the appellant/Insurance Company jointly and severally.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the driver did not possess a valid licence to drive a medium goods vehicle as required under Section 10 of the Act; thereby the conditions of the insurance policy were breached as defined in Section 149 of the Act; as such, the insurer cannot be fastened with liability; the insurer discharged its primary burden by adducing evidence in the form of Exs.B1–B4; the Tribunal overlooked settled law that in case of such breach the insurer is entitled to pay and recover the compensation, i.e., satisfy the award first and thereafter recover from the owner/insured.

5. There is no representation for the respondents. This appeal is of the year 2019. Hence, this appeal is disposed of on merits, basing on the material available on record, without waiting for the respondents to advance arguments.

6. It is not in dispute that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a licence authorising him to drive a medium goods vehicle on the date of the accident. This constitutes a breach of terms under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the policy conditions. The appellant-insurer proved this fact on record by examining RW-1 and by marking Exs.B1 to B4. However, the Tribunal observed that there was no proof that the owne