IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA M.A.C.M.A.No.426 of 2025 06^th DAY OF APRIL, 2026 Between:

M/s. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.

…Appellant AND Vallakati Aishwarya and two others.

...Respondents JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri A.S.Narayana, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Perused the entire record.

2. The M.A.C.M.A. is preferred by the appellant/respondent No.2- insurance company aggrieved by the award passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, (‘Tribunal’) dated 19.08.2024 in M.V.O.P.No.479 of 2022, wherein a claim petition filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (‘M.V.Act’) has been allowed-in-part awarding a sum of Rs.27,71,320/- payable with interest at 7.5% per annum with proportionate costs.

3. The background facts are that on 07.12.2019, at about 21.45 hours, the deceased by name Vallakati Aruna and her son were proceeding on bike bearing number TS 08 FS 5100 from Rajeevgruhakalpa, Suraram to Shapur Nagar. When the bike reached Om Janda Suraram, Quthbullapur, the rider has driven in rash and negligent manner without observing a speed breaker and passed over it. Due to said rash driving, the pillion rider fell down on the road, sustained bleeding injuries to the head. She was immediately shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Somajiguda and from there to Gandhi Hospital. While undergoing treatment, she died on 13.12.2019 at about 21:47 hours. A claim petition was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- and the same was allowed in part for Rs.27,71,320/- payable with interest at 7.5% per annum. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the insurance company preferred the present appeal, on the ground that the deceased is none other than mother of the owner/insured of the crime vehicle and therefore, the deceased cannot be considered as a third party to the policy. It is pleaded that the risk of pillion rider is covered under a package policy is not correct as the owner of the vehicle has not paid any premium to cover the risk of the pillion rider and the package policy covers the risk of own damage apart from third party damage. However, to cover the risk of pillion rider, additional premium has to be paid by the owner. It is pleaded that the owner obtained Ex.B-1 policy and paid an amount of Rs.686/- towards own damage, Rs.1,193/- towards basic third party cover and Rs.315/- towards personal accident cover for owner-cum-driver. Except the aforementioned, premium to cover the risk of pillion rider was not paid. In the circumstances, since the mother of the owner is not a third party, but was travelling as pillion rider, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation.

5. It is pleaded that in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sadanand Mukhi, Civil Appeal No.7402 of 2008, it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that owner and deceased, father and son do not have a third party relationship as contemplated under Section 165 of the M.V.Act and therefore, the relatives would not be entitled to compensation from the insurance company.

6. Apart from the fact of liability to cover the risk of the pillion rider, the appellant also raised the issue of delay of seven days in lodging the FIR and quantification of the compensation paid, more particularly for considering the gross total income of Rs.20,158/- per month while computing the loss of dependency instead of considering net salary.

7. Learned counsel for appellant-insurance company relied upon the case of Jayavarapu Rajamma v. Jayavarapu Laxminarayana, 2007 (6) ALD 306 (DB), wherein the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, held that the kith and kin of the insured for injuries and their legal representatives in the event of the death in an acc