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.554 of 2019 DATE: 13.02.2026 Between:

M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Local Manager, Situated Opp. Hotel Vijetha, K.K. Road, Suryapet, Nalgonda Dist-508213 …..Appellant AND Smt. Shaik Mahaboob Bee and six others ….Respondents

JUDGMENT

This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is filed by the appellant-insurance company, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22.09.2018, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge at Khammam (for short “the Tribunal”) in O.P.No.726 of 2012 whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.13,55,200/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum to the claimants-respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein for the death of the deceased, Shaik Meera Saheb.

2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that on 21.12.2011, at about 20:00 hours, the deceased was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.AP-N5505 from his village towards Khammam and when he reached near Yekkudu Bodu (hillock road), Shivaigudem, a tractor-trailer bearing No.AP-24-AN-3266 / AP-24-B-7439 entered the public way in a rash and negligent manner and collided with the motorcycle. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The Police of Khanapuram Haveli Police Station registered a case in Crime No.314 of 2011 under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the tractor-trailer. Stating that the deceased was about 26 years old at the time of the accident, was a lorry driver by occupation, and was earning about Rs. 10,000/- per month, contributing to his family’s welfare, and due to the sudden death of the deceased, they became destitute, the claimants-respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein, being his wife, children and parents, filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

3. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver and awarded a total compensation of Rs.13,55,200/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of the claimants, payable jointly and severally by respondent Nos.2 and 3 therein i.e., insurer and owner of the offending vehicle. Dissatisfied with the award, the appellant-insurance company filed the present appeal.

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

5. So far as negligence is concerned, the Tribunal rightly concluded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending tractor-trailer. The First Information Report, charge-sheet and post-mortem report were admitted into evidence before the Tribunal, which clearly indicated that the deceased died due to injuries inflicted in the collision. Therefore, this Court sees no ground to interfere with the Tribunal’s finding on negligence, which is supported by evidence on record.

6. Coming to contributory negligence, though the appellant contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered contributory negligence on account of the deceased’s alleged non-use of a helmet and negligent conduct, as has been consistently held, mere absence of direct evidence of helmet usage does not, in the absence of any affidavit or proof, automatically attract contributory negligence. The onus to establish contributory negligence lies on the insurer; mere statutory breach under Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act will not, by itself, lead to the conclusion of contributory negligence unless the accident circumstances show that such breach materially contributed to the harm.

7. On the issue of non-joinder of owner and driver of the motorcycle, it is well established that in motor accident claims under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, a Tribunal may proceed against the insurer of the offending vehicle where liability has been established on the basis of evide