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.2641 of 2019 DATE: 21.01.2026 Between:

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited ….. Appellant AND Smt. N. Aruna and four others.

….Respondents

JUDGMENT:

This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.03.2016 passed in M.V.O.P.No.293 of 2012 by the learned XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of 6,27,125/- together with interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of the claimants, who are respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein, being the wife and daughters of the deceased N. Manik Prabhu, who died in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the deceased was working as a Head Constable at P.S. Ibrahimpatnam, Cyberabad, and while on duty he was proceeding towards Secunderabad on 14.09.2011, at about 3:00 p.m., on his Passion Pro Bike bearing No.AP 10 W 6253. When he reached near Metro on Inner Ring Road between Nagole and Uppal, an unknown vehicle hit him from behind and ran away. As a result, the deceased fell down and received multiple injuries, was rushed to Kamineni Hospital for treatment on 15.09.2011, and while undergoing treatment, he died on 16.09.2011. During the course of investigation by the police, it was discovered that an Auto Rickshaw bearing No.AP 11 X 6327, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, was the vehicle which dashed the deceased. Police investigated the matter and filed a charge sheet against the driver of the said auto in C.C.No.81/2012. Stating that the deceased was hale and healthy and all the petitioners were dependent on him, the claimants filed the aforesaid claim petition seeking compensation of 15,000,000/- for the death of the deceased.

3. Before the Tribunal, the respondent No.1 (owner of the auto) remained ex parte. The respondent No.2/Insurance Company/Appellant herein contested the claim petition by filing a counter-affidavit denying all the averments of the petition, including the manner of accident, age, avocation, and involvement of the crime vehicle. It was further contended that the claim for compensation was excessive and exorbitant.

4. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto bearing No. AP 11 X 6327 and awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,27,125/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of the claimants. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant/Insurance Company filed the present appeal.

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

6. With regard to negligence and liability, the material on record, including the FIR, charge sheet, inquest report, and PME report (Exs.A1 to A4), demonstrates that the police investigation concluded that the driver of the auto was responsible for the accident. The testimony of the eyewitness PW2 supported the contention that the auto driver drove in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased. The appellant/Insurance Company failed to adduce any evidence to rebut these records or establish that the vehicle was planted. The Tribunal, upon proper appreciation of evidence, rightly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto driver. This Court finds no reason to take a different view.

7. Sofaras assessment of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal adopted Rs.50,000/- per annum towards notional income, deducted one-fourth towards personal expenses, added 30% for future prospects for the deceased aged 50 years, and applied multiplier “13” as per the settled legal position. The amounts awarded towards loss of consortium and funeral expenses are reasonable and do not call for interference. On a cumulative assessment, the compensation a