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.670 of 2019 DATE: 20.02.2026 Between:

The United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, Branch Office: Mancherial, Mancherial proper and Mandal of Adilabad District.

….. Appellant AND Smt. Ethineni Laxmi and four others.

….Respondents

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 30.05.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.235 of 2012 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Godavarikhani (for short “the Tribunal”), wherein, the learned Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.7,91,036/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization for the death of one Ethineni Bhumaiah (hereinafter referred as “the deceased”), in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 16.12.2009, the deceased left his house in the morning hours and was proceeding towards Godavarikhani on his Hero Honda Splendor Plus motorcycle bearing No.AP-15-AD-0706. At about 10:00 hours, when he reached FCI Cross Road and was crossing Rajeev Rahadari towards Hanmantha Home Clinic, a lorry bearing No. AP-01-U-8438 (hereinafter referred to as “crime vehicle”), driven in a rash and negligent manner, came to the wrong side of the road and dashed against him. The deceased was immediately shifted to the Government Area Hospital, Godavarikhani. While being shifted to Karimnagar Hospital for better treatment, he succumbed to the injuries at about 10:20 hours. A case in Crime No. 213 of 2009 for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC was registered against the driver of the crime vehicle and after investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the concerned Court.

3. Before the Tribunal, the owner of the crime vehicle remained ex parte. The Insurance Company filed a counter denying the allegations in the petition and contended that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident and had not followed traffic rules, including wearing a helmet. The Insurance Company further denied the age, occupation, income and health condition of the deceased and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

4. The Tribunal, upon considering the evidence on record, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. While assessing the compensation, the Tribunal relied on Ex.A7 (Pension Statement), considering the age of the deceased as 61 years, and applied the appropriate multiplier in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (6) SCC 121 and accordingly, awarded total compensation of Rs.7,91,036/-. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal, the appellant-Insurance Company filed present appeal.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company vehemently contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the deceased contributed to the accident.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents- claimants contended that the Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, rightly awarded the compensation and that no interference is required by this Court in the well-reasoned order passed by the Tribunal.

7. As seen from the material placed on record, the evidence of PW.2, who is an eyewitness to the accident, coupled with the documentary evidence such as Ex.A1-FIR and Ex.A2-Charge Sheet, clearly establishes that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry. The Tribunal has rightly assessed the income based on the pensionary benefits of the deceased as per Ex.A7. This Court finds that the multiplier applied and the compensation awarded under various heads are just and reasonable,

following the settled principles of law. There is no illegality or