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.807 of 2019 DATE:10.02.2026 Between:

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Manager, D.O.IV, Posnette Bhavan, Ramkote, Hyderabad.

…..Appellant AND Sri V. Lakshmaiah and two others ….Respondents

JUDGMENT

The appellant-insurance company has filed this appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2007 passed in O.P. No.2614 of 2005 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional Chief Judge, Fast Track Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), whereby compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest was awarded jointly and severally against the owner and insurer of the offending bus, in favour of the parents of the deceased, V. Mallesh, who died in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 04.06.2005, the deceased left Hyderabad for Aurangabad by a bus bearing registration No.AP- 9X-3339 at about 4.30 p.m and on the morning of 05.06.2005, while the bus was proceeding on Nanded–Aurangabad Road, the driver of the bus drove it in a rash and negligent manner, lost control, and the bus overturned, causing grievous injuries to the deceased, who succumbed to his injuries on the spot. Subsequently, a criminal case has been registered in Crime No.122 of 2005 under Sections 304-A, 279, 337, 338 and 427 of IPC against the driver of the said bus. Claiming that the offending bus was owned by respondent No.1/respondent No.3 herein and insured with respondent No.2/appellant and that both were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to them, claimants-respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-

3. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.3 herein i.e., owner of the bus remained ex parte. The appellant-insurance company contested the claim on several grounds, including denial of the insured status of the offending vehicle, denial of negligent driving, denial of the deceased’s income and age, and disputing the enforceability of the insurance policy. The appellant particularly contended that the vehicle bearing No.AP-9X-3339 involved in the accident was not insured with the appellant, as the policy produced by the claimants purportedly related to a different vehicle bearing No.AP-9X-3348. The appellant also denied liability on the ground that the claimants had failed to prove essential elements of the claim and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence, found that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver and that the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant at the relevant time and awarded compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum, holding both the owner and insurer jointly and severally liable. The said order is challenged in the present appeal by the appellant/insurer.

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

5. So far as negligence is concerned, the Tribunal recorded unchallenged evidence of an eye-witness (PW3) that the bus bearing registration No.AP-9X-3339 was driven in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in the accident and the consequent death of the deceased. The evidence of the deceased’s father (PW1) also supported the occurrence of the accident, and no credible evidence was led by the appellant to displace this evidence. Thus, the Tribunal’s finding on the occurrence of the accident and rash and negligent driving stands affirmed.

6. On the question of liability, although the appellant contended that the policy Ex.B-1 pertained to a different registration number (AP-9X-3348) and not the crime vehicle, the Tribunal noted that the policy number mentioned in the petition and in the xerox copy filed by the claimants matched the polic