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.870 of 2019 DATE: 23.02.2026 Between:

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Manager, D.O. at 9-1-180, Girmajipet, Warangal-506002.

…..Appellant AND Bukya Santhamma and another.

….Respondents

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 09.08.2008 passed in M.V.O.P.No.628 of 2006, by theChairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge (III-F.T.C), Warangalat Mahabubabad (for short “the Tribunal”), wherein, the learned Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.50,400/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization for the injuries sustained by the respondent No.1-claimant in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 04.09.2005, the claimantboarded the auto bearing No.AP-36-V-8441 (hereinafter referred to as “crime vehicle”) at Nallabelli to go to Bilnaik Thanda and when the said auto reached near Nallabelli cross roads at about 17.30 hours, the driver of auto drove it in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and lost control over it, as a result the auto turned turtle and front wheel axle was broken and the claimant sustained facture to shaft femur of right thigh, fracture of patella of right leg. Immediately after the accident, she was shifted to Sri Ganesha Orthopedic Hospital, Hanamakonda and treated as inpatient from 04.09.2005 to 19.09.2005 and an operation was conducted on fracture injuries and discharged with an advice of three months bed rest.A case was registered by the Police Station, Nallabelli against the driver of the crime vehicle.The claimant filed the aforesaid claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.Before the Tribunal, driver of the crime vehicle remained ex parte. The Insurance Company filed counter anddenied the manner of accident, age, avocation, earning capacity, expenditure incurred by the claimant towards her treatment charges, involvement of the auto and negligence on the part of the driver. It was further denied that the driver of auto was not holding valid driving license and the amount claimed by the claimant was excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.To substantiate the claim,claimantexamined herself as P.W.1 and the Doctor who treated her as P.W.2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.19. On behalf of respondents,no oral and documentary evidence was adduced.The Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driverof the crime vehicle and accordingly, awarded compensation of Rs.50,400/-fastening liability on driver of the auto and the insurance company. Aggrieved by the award and decree passed by the Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company.

3. Learned Standing Counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company vehemently contended that the subsequent to the investigation by C.B.I in some bogus claims, it was revealed that with the active involvement of some Advocates, Doctors & Police officials bogus claims were made and settled in Warangal District and the appellant immediately investigated the doubtful claims by the company investigators and as per the report dated 20.11.2007 submitted by the Investigator, it is revealed that the claim in M.V.O.P.No.628 of 2006 was fraudulent one and as such the order dated 09.08.2007 is liable to be set-aside.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/claimant submitted that the Tribunal correctly appreciated the evidence, and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and requires no interference.

5. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the entire material available on record.

6. As seen from the material placed on record, it is the specific case of the appellant/Insurance Company that the