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.2189 of 2019 DATE: 16.02.2026 Between:

The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Begumpet, Hyderabad, Represented by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, II Floor, Sai Anasuya Complex, Near Reliance Web World, Pragathinagar, Hyderabad Road, Nizamabad.

…..Appellant AND Smt. Akula Ramavva and five others ….Respondents

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 02.07.2014, passed in O.P.No.105 of 2012 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge at Kamareddy (for short “the Tribunal”), wherein, the learned Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,80,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against a total claim of Rs. 4,00,000/- for the death of the deceased-Late Baira Goud in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 18.01.2005, at about 02.00 P.M., the deceased was getting his land ploughed with a Swaraj tractor bearing No.QXTA-31605131559. While the deceased was sitting on the plough attached to the tractor, the driver of the tractor drove the same in a rash and negligent manner. As a result, the deceased fell down under the plough and sustained fatal injuries. He succumbed to the injuries on the same day at NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad, while undergoing treatment. The Police of Sadashivnagar Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.8 of 2005 against the driver of the offending tractor for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC.Before the Tribunal, the driver and owner of the tractor (Respondents 1 and 3 therein) remained ex parte. The appellant/Insurance Company filed a counter-affidavit denying the age, occupation, and income of the deceased. It further contended that the deceased was an unauthorized passenger in a goods vehicle where no passenger seating was provided, constituting a violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Consequently, the appellant prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition.To substantiate the claim, the claimants examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.4 were marked.The Tribunal, upon evaluation of the evidence of P.W.2 (eye-witness) and Exs.A.1 to A.4, concluded that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor driver. In assessing compensation, the Tribunal determined the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-. Deducting 1/3^rdfor personal expenses and applying a multiplier of '15' (based on the age of 40 years), the Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,60,000/- for loss of dependency. Additionally, it awarded Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate, Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses, and Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium, totaling Rs.3,80,000/-. The Tribunal further directed the appellant/Insurance Company to pay the compensation in the first instance and thereafter recover the same from the owner of the vehicle (Pay and Recover). Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company vehemently contended that the Tribunal committed a grave error in not properly appreciating the evidence of R.W.2, who deposed that the driver lacked a valid driving license. It was further argued that fastening liability on the Insurance Company, even with the liberty to recover, was erroneous given the policy violations.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants contended that the Tribunal’s award is well-reasoned and based on a proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, requiring no interference by this Court.

5. This Court, having carefully evaluated the material available on record and the findings of the Tribunal, observes that the primary contentio