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.613 of 2019 DATE: 11.02.2026 Between:

KatkamAlekya and another …..Appellants AND GuggillaThirupathi and another ….Respondents

JUDGMENT

The appellants have preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act’), against the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2013 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Karimnagar (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in M.V.O.P.No.706 of 2011, whereby compensation of Rs.65,293/- was awarded in favour of the claimant-

respondent No.1 herein.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 19.10.2011, the claimant-respondent No.1 herein was riding his motor cycle bearing Registration No.AP-15-J-6020 at Nachupally Village and when he reached at the outskirts of Nachupally, a Maruti car bearing Registration No.AP-15-T/R-2162, driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver i.e., appellant No.1 herein (respondent No.1 in the claim petition), collided with his motor cycle, causing him to fall and sustain grievous injuries. As a result, the claimant not only suffered shock but also loss of hearing capacity. The Police of Kodimial Police Station registered a case in Crime No.62 of 2010 under Section 337 of IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle. The claimant-respondent No.1 herein filed the aforesaid claim petition under Section 166(1)(a) & (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”), before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for injuries the sustained by him in theroad accident, against the appellant Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No.2 herein i.e., driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

3. Before the Tribunal, appellant No.1 (respondent No.1 in the claim petition) filed a counter-affidavit, which was adopted by appellant No.2 (respondent No.2 in the claim petition),specifically denying that she was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident and contending that FIR was falsely registered against her, that she is not liable to pay any compensation and that, if liability arises at all, it should be fastened upon the owner and insurer of the vehicle. Respondent No.2 herein-insurance company (respondent No.3 in the claim petition) also filed a counter-affidavit denying liability on the ground that the driver did not hold a valid driving licence at the time of the accident and that the claimant failed to establish rash and negligent driving and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.The Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and awarded compensation of Rs.65,293/-in favour of the claimant. However, the Tribunal absolved respondent No.2 herein-insurance companyof liability and held the appellants (respondents Nos.1 and 2 in the claim petition) jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award.Aggrieved by the award, the appellants (respondent No.1 and 2 in the claim petition) preferred the present appeal challenging the findings on liability and the quantum of compensation.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended thatthe Tribunal erred in holding that appellant No.1 was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident; that the claimant had failed to prove rash and negligent driving by the appellants; that, in any event, liability, if any, should be fastened solely on the insurer since the vehicle was insured; and that the impugned award is liable to be set aside.

5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3-insurance company contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident and, therefore, there was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, which absolves the insurer from liabi