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.1937 of 2019 DATE: 21.01.2026 Between:

M/s. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its General Manager, Hyderabad.

... Appellant AND Moravoina Chandra Sekhar and three others.

….Respondents

JUDGMENT

The appellant-insurance company has filed this appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the judgment and decree dated 15.03.2019 passed by the XXVII Additional Chief Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in M.V.O.P. No.7 of 2018, whereby compensation of Rs.6,55,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum was awarded to the claimants i.e., respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, for the death of Ms.M.Sirisha (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 02.07.2017, at about 07:15 hours, while the deceased along with her family members was proceeding on a Hero Honda bearing No.TS 15 EL 7349 as a pillion rider from Ramchandrapuram towards Balkampet via Kukatpally, a lorry bearing No.AP 09 W 7438 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed the motorcycle from the rear side near Vivekananda Nagar Kaman. As a result of the collision, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The police of Kukatpally Police Station registered a case in Crime No.454 of 2017 under Sections 304A and 337 IPC. Stating that the deceased was a student and was also doing tailoring work earning Rs.10,000/- per month, and that the claimants being the brother and sister of the deceased were depending on her income and lost her love and affection, they filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

3. Before the Tribunal, the driver and owner of the lorry (respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein) filed counter-affidavits denying the allegations and contended that the vehicle was duly insured and the driver possessed a valid driving licence. Respondent No.3-insurance company i.e., the appellant herein, filed a counter contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the motorcycle rider as three persons were traveling on the motorcycle, which is a violation of the seating capacity. It was further contended that the driver of the lorry did not possess a valid driving licence.

4. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and documents Exs.A1 to A7, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver and awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,55,000/- in favor of the claimants i.e., respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization payable by the respondents therein jointly and severally. Challenging the same, the appellant-insurance company filed the present appeal.

5. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record.

6. A careful examination of the record reveals that the Tribunal’s finding that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver is supported by credible evidence, including the testimony of PW.1 and PW2 as well as the FIR and charge-sheet. The contention of the appellant regarding contributory negligence on the part of the deceased for traveling as one of three persons on a motorcycle cannot be accepted in the absence of any positive evidence to show that such a fact contributed to the cause of the accident. Accordingly, the said finding of the Tribunal on negligence is sustained.

7. So far as the liability is concerned, the appellant’s contention that the claimants, being the brother and sister, are not entitled to compensation as they were not dependents is not sustainable. The record indicates that both parents of the deceased also died in the same accident, leaving the