SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 77210

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
Shriram General Insurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Bajekar Rahul And 3 Others – Respondent
MACMA 7/2023



##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

* * * *

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

M.A.C.M.A.Nos.7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 40,

47, 86, 129, 644, 650, 651, 659 and 680 of 2023

DATE: 31.12.2025

Between

M/s. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited

…Appellant/respondent No.4

AND

Bajekar Rahul S/o Bajekar Ganapathi and others

…Respondent No.1/petitioner

COMMON JUDGMENT:

Since all these appeals arise out of the same accident, they are

being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Heard Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, learned counsel for the

appellant-Shriram General Insurance Company Limited in MACMA

Nos.7, 8, 9, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 86, 129, 10, 11, 38, 40 and 47 of

2023 and respondent-Shriram General Insurance Company Limited in

MACMA Nos.650, 659 and 680 of 2023, Sri Kuriti Vijaya Prem Swami

Naidu, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants in MACMA Nos.650,

644, 651, 659 and 680 of 2023 and respondents-claimants in MACMA

Nos.7, 8, 10, 11, 38, 40 and 47 of 2023, Sri K.Madhusudhan Reddy,

##PAGE2##

2

learned counsel for the respondent–Oriental Insurance Company

Limited, Sri Akkam Eshwar and Sri P.Radhive Reddy, learned counsel

for the respondents-claimants in MACMA Nos.9, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36,

86 and 129 of 2023 and Ms.P.Satya Manjula, learned counsel for the

respondent No.2 in MACMA No.644 of 2023.

3. Some of the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed

by the Insurance Company and some are filed by the claimants

assailing the orders dated 29.08.2022 passed by the learned Chairman,

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge,

Nizamabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in the respective M.V.O.Ps.

4. The parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the

MVOPs.

5. The facts leading to filing of the MVOPs are that on 14.05.2016,

the respective deceased and the injured persons belonging to one

family were travelling in an Auto bearing No.TS 01 UA 5328 from

Navipet Village to Adelli Temple at Sarangapur Village, and when the

auto reached Haryali Petrol Bunk at 10.50. pm, a Tipper Lorry bearing

No.AP 26 TC 0699, with the load of concrete stones, drove by its driver

in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed the Auto in the

opposite direction, as a result of which, out of 17 inmates of the Auto,

15 have died on the spot and the other two persons sustained grievous

injuries.

##PAGE3##

3

6. Therefore, the claimants approached the Tribunal by way of

filing respective MVOPs claiming different amounts towards

compensation along with interest.

7. The Insurance Company, who was impleaded in all the MVOPs

before the Tribunal, has contested the MVOPs by filing a written

statement, whereas the owners of the Auto and Tipper Lorry were set

exparte. The Insurance Company denied the contentions raised by the

claimants and stated that 17 members were travelling in an auto,

wherein only 4 members were permitted, and on account of overload,

the accident occurred. It is also stated that by inducting 17 persons,

the owner of the auto violated the insurance policy. It is further stated

that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the Tipper

Lorry, and therefore, the Insurance Company denied its liability.

8. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed certain issues for

its consideration. Before the Tribunal, the parties led evidence, both

oral as well as documentary to establish their case.

9. The Tribunal, taking into consideration various factual aspects,

partly allowed some claims granting various amounts towards

compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company filed

these appeals.

10. Learned counsel for the Shriram Insurance Company submits

that the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the legal

##PAGE4##

4

defences raised by the appellant in the written statement. It is further

contended that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the accident has

occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of

the Tipper Lorry alone and the complaint was given against the Tipper

Lo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top