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.Nos.931 and 2425 of 2019 DATE: 26.02.2026 M.A.C.M.A.No.931 of 2019 Between:

Boddukuri Shankaraiah …..Appellant AND Bantu Vittal Yadav and another ….Respondents M.A.C.M.A.No.2425 of 2019 Between:

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, rep. by its Manager, Far East Plaza II Floor, 3-6-111/1/8, Street No.18 Main Road, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad.

…..Appellant AND Boddukuri shankaraiah and another ….Respondents

COMMON JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.2425 of 2019 is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2010 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial (for short “the Tribunal”) in O.P.No.287 of 2007, whereby compensation of Rs.1,48,000/- was awarded in favour of the claimant for injuries sustained in a road accident, whereas M.A.C.M.A.No.931 of 2019 is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 02.09.2006 at about 11:30 p.m., while the claimant was crossing the road near Park Hotel, Nampally, Hyderabad, a Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle bearing Registration No.AP-11-S-2262 driven by respondent No.1 struck him. As a result of the collision, the claimant sustained multiple grievous injuries. He was admitted as an inpatient at Medwin Hospital from 03.09.2006 to 08.09.2006 and underwent surgery on 05.09.2006. He was advised prolonged bed-rest and physiotherapy for recovery. Stating that the claimant ran a kirana business in Luxettipet, earning about Rs10,000 per month and due to the accident, he suffered loss of earnings, incurred substantial medical expenses, and would require future surgery to remove internal interlocking nails, in addition to enduring pain, suffering and disability, he filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.

4. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1, the driver-cum-owner of the offending motorcycle, remained ex parte. Respondent No.2- Insurance Company not only denied liability, contending that respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving licence on the date of the accident and thereby violated policy conditions, absolving the insurer of liability. Further, respondent No.2 disputed occurrence of the accident and challenged the quantum of compensation claimed. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal found that the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by respondent No.1 and awarded compensation of Rs.1,48,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum, jointly and severally against the owner and insurer. While the Insurance Company preferred MACMA.No.2425 of 2019 challenging liability and quantum, the claimant filed MACMA.No.931 of 2019 seeking enhancement of compensation.

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

6. So far as negligence and liability are concerned, the Tribunal, based on the evidence, correctly concluded that the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. The Tribunal also correctly found that the insurance policy (Ex.B-1) was valid on the date of the accident. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company failed to prove that respondent No.1 did not hold a valid driving licence on the date of accident by producing independent, reliable or credible documentary evidence. It is well settled that an insurer cannot avoid liability merely on the basis of an oral assertion by its witness without credible documentary evidence. Accordingly, the Tribunal was justified in fixing joint and several liability on respondents No.1 and No.2 and there is no sufficient ground to interfere with this finding.

7. As regards assessment of compensation, this Court, on