THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO DATED: 6^th MARCH 2026 Between:

United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Khammam, Through its Regional Office, TP-HUB., Ramkoti, Tilak Road, Hyderabad Represented by its Manager.

… Appellant – respondent No.2 And

1.Shaik Nagul Meera … Respondent No.1 – petitioner

2.Kampa Ram Babu … Respondent No.2 – respondent No.1

JUDGMENT

1. This memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the MV Act’) assailing the award passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Additional District Judge) (Fast Track Court), Khammam (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MATOP.No.1155 of 2004, dated 26.07.2011.

2. Appellant is the respondent No.2, respondent No.1 is the petitioner and respondent No.2 is the respondent No.1 in the O.P.

3. Respondent No.1 – petitioner has filed claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act claiming compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the accident till the date of realization against respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally.

4. On 20.06.2004 at about 09.50 p.m., respondent No.1 - petitioner along with his friend Mohan went to Mamillagudem on their work and were returning on a motor cycle bearing No.AP-20-G-2477, when they reached daily needs centre, one motor cycle bearing No.AP-37-G-4226, which is driven by respondent No.2 – respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident, due to which respondent No.1 – petitioner sustained injuries. On the complaint PS Traffic, Khammam registered a case in Crime No.111 of 2004 for the offence under Section 337 of IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle and filed charge sheet. Respondent No.1 – petitioner has took treatment with Dr.T.Madhan Singh, Orthopedic Surgeon as inpatient for a period of 30 days, he was aged about 28 years as on the date of accident, doing real estate business and earning Rs.5,000/- per month.

5. Respondent No.2 – respondent No.1 did not file any counter. Appellant – respondent No.2 has filed counter and denied the manner in which the accident has taken place.

6. Respondent No.1 – petitioner is examined as PW1, also examined PW2 – Dr.T.Madhan Singh and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. Appellant – respondent No.2 has got examined RW1 - M.Radha Krishna and got marked Ex.B1- C.C. of Insurance Policy.

7. The learned Tribunal after going through the evidence adduced by the parties coupled with the documents marked thereon has awarded compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of deposit of the amount against respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant – respondent No.2 [Insurance Company] submits that the Tribunal ought to have exonerated the appellant – respondent No.2 from the liability in paying the compensation as the police has filed charge sheet against the rider of the motor cycle bearing No.AP-37-G-4226 as he was not possessing valid driving licence as on the date of accident and owner (respondent No.2 herein) did not contest the matter. The learned Tribunal has erroneous fastened the liability on the appellant – respondent No.2 on the ground that the insurance company did not examine the rider of the motor cycle of respondent No.2 - respondent No.1 or the RTO in order to prove that the accused driver did not possess valid driving licence and prayed to allow the appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 - petitioner submits that though the respondent No.1 - petitioner has not filed appeal seeking enhancement of compensation but he is entitled for just compensation. The Tribunal has wrongly taken the income of the respondent No.1 – petitioner at Rs.3,000/- per month, which has to be taken at Rs.4,500/- per month. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases