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.789 of 2019 DATE: 08.12.2025 Between:

The United India Insurance Company Limited …..Appellant/Respondent No.3 AND Sogala Sagar and two others.

….Respondents

JUDGMENT:

This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company, challenging the award and decree dated 23.01.2008 passed in M.V.O.P.No.170 of 2006 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,14,450/- together with interest @ 7.5% per annum to be payable by the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company for the injuries sustained by the respondent No.1-

claimant in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 21.06.2005 at about 11.00 hours, while the claimant along with his sister-in-law Sharada was proceeding on his Suzuki motorcycle bearing No.AP- 1-E-1468 and when he reached Devapur Crossroad, near Kasipet, the tractor-trailer bearing No.AP-1-U-2623/2686 (hereinafter referred as ‘crime vehicle’) driven by its driver in opposite direction and in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the motorcycle of the claimant. As a result, the claimant fell down on road and sustained fracture of both bones of right leg and foot drop. The police of Kasipet registered a case in Crime No.44 of 205 for the offences under Sections 337 & 338 of IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle. The claimant filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.

3. The Tribunal, upon appreciating the oral and documentary evidence including the medical record and disability certificate, assessed compensation under various heads and awarded Rs.1,14,450/- together with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company.

4. Heard the submissions of learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and perused the record. No representation for the respondents.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contended that since the driver of the tractor-trailer did not possess a valid driving licence as on the date of the accident, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable. It is submitted that the charge sheet (Ex.A-2) and the evidence of RW-1 make it clear that the driver was not holding any valid and effective licence. It is argued that fastening liability on the insurer is contrary to law and that the Tribunal failed to apply the principle of pay-and-recover.

6. As seen from the material placed on record, the evidence of RW.1 established that driver of the crime vehicle had no valid driving licence as on the date of accident. Once violation of policy conditions is proved, the insurer is entitled to seek recovery from the vehicle owner after satisfying the award. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rama Bai vs. M./s. Amit Minerals through Incharge Officer/Competent Officer and another, 2025 SCC Online SC 2067, applied the doctrine of “pay and recover” where the insurer must satisfy the award at the first instance despite violation, with liberty to recover the amount

from the owner. The principle squarely applies to the present case. Having regard to the evidence, the clear violation of licence condition, and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal erred in fastening liability absolutely upon the Insurance Company without granting liberty of recovery. The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not disputed in this appeal and requires no interference. However, the manner of fastening liability requires modification.

7. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed, modifying the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. The appellant-Insurance Company shall pay the compensat