##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.254 of 2019

DATE:28.01.2026

Between:

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,

rep. by its Branch Manager,

D.O.I UNIT NO.303 TO 305, Lal II Oyasis Plaza,

Tilak Road, Abids, Hyderabad

…..Appellant

AND

VontelaSamatha and six 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

questioning the order and decree dated 29.09.2016 passed

in O.P.No.100 of 2012 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge (FTC), Siddipet (for short

“the Tribunal”), whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation

of Rs.4,36,200/- with interest at 7.5% per annumin favour of the

claimants-respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein for the death of late

VontelaSatyanarayana(hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in a

motor vehicle accident.

2

2. The brief facts of the case are thaton 09.09.2008, the deceased

was driving a Maruthi Zen Car bearing registration No.AP 15 K

888, and when it reached Duddeda Village, a lorry bearing No.AP 9 Y

5859, driven by respondent No.6 herein, owned by respondent

No.7herein and insured with the appellant-Insurance Company,

came from the opposition direction in a rash and negligent manner,

on the wrong side and collided with the car, as a result of which the

deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot.A case in

Crime No.125 of 2008 was registered under Sections 304-A and 337

IPC against the deceased. The claimants-respondent Nos.1 to 5

herein, being the wife, minor children, father and mother of the

deceased filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal, under

Section 163-A of the Act, seeking compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- for

the death of the deceased in the said accident. The Tribunal, on

appreciation of the evidence on record, awarded compensation of

Rs.4,36,200/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of

petition till realization.Aggrieved thereby, the appellant-insurance

company has preferred the present appeal.

3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant–

insurance company contended that the Tribunal erred in fastening

liability on the insurer in a claim under Section 163-A of the Act, as

the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the

3

deceased himself while driving the car. Learned Standing Counsel

further contended that the involvement of the insured lorry was not

established in accordance with law and that, in any event, the

insurer cannot be made liable when the deceased himself was the

tort-feasor. Learned Standing Counsel also contended that the

quantum of compensation as well as the rate of interest awarded by

the Tribunal are excessive and liable to be interfered with by this

Court.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents–

claimants contended that the claim petition under Section 163-A of

the Act was rightly allowed by the Tribunal, as negligence is not

required to be pleaded or proved in a no-fault claim. Leaned counsel

further contended that the Tribunal correctly applied the structured

formula under the Second Schedule by restricting the annual income

of the deceased to Rs.40,000/- and by adopting the appropriate

multiplier, and that the fastening of liability on the insurer of the

offending vehicle as well as the rate of interest awarded are just and

do not warrant interference by this Court.

5. It is not in dispute that the claim petition was filed under

Section 163-A of the Act. The law relating to claims under Section

163-A is well settled.In DeepalGirishbhaiSoni v. United India

4

Insurance Co. Ltd., 1(2004) 5 SCC 385, the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held

that negligence is not required to be pleaded or proved in a claim

under Section 163-A and that the defence of fault on the part of the

deceased is not available to the insurer.Therefore, the contention of

the appellant that the deceased himself was negligent and tha