IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY M.A.C.M.A.No.4994 of 2008 DATE:16.03.2026 Between:

United India Insurance Company Limited …Appellant AND Md. Haneefuddin & another …Respondents

JUDGMENT:

This is an appeal filed by the United Insurance Company Limited, challenging the Award dated 22.10.2005 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar, in O.P.No.3 of 2002. By the impugned Award, the learned Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, to the claimants on account of the death of their son in a Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on

12.11.1999.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 12.11.1999, at about 8:20 p.m., Mr. Hafeezuddin (the deceased) was returning to his hotel after supplying tea at a telephone booth. While crossing the road, a lorry bearing No. AP9U226CA, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against him, resulting in his instantaneous death. The parents of the deceased filed a claim petition, O.P.No.3 of 2002, before the learned Tribunal, claiming a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

3. Respondent No.1 (owner of the lorry) remained ex parte before the learned Tribunal.

4. Respondent No.2 filed a counter-affidavit stating that the petition is not maintainable and that the accident did not occur due to the negligence of the lorry driver. It is contended that the petitioner was not aged 22 years and was not earning Rs. 5,000/- per month in the hotel business. The respondent further stated that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased while crossing the road. It is also contended that the respondent is not liable, as the vehicle was not insured with it. The manner of the accident is denied, and the compensation claimed is stated to be high and excessive. The respondent also claims entitlement to raise all defences available under Section

170 of the Motor Vehicles Act and seeks dismissal of the petition with costs.

5. On behalf of the claimants, the father of the deceased was examined as PW1, and Exs. A1 to A8 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant-

Insurance Company.

6. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. Challenging the same, the Insurance Company filed this appeal.

7. Heard Sri Somanchi Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the appellants. None appeared for the respondents.

8. Learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company would contend that the learned Tribunal erred in concluding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry. It is also contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have taken the age of the mother of the deceased for the purpose of applying the multiplier and calculating the compensation, instead of taking the age of the deceased. It is also contended that the compensation awarded is excessive.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants would contend that the award passed by the learned Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference.

10. Having considered the respective submissions, it may be noted that the learned Tribunal has considered Exs.A1 to A8, more particularly, Ex.A1 (certified copy of FIR), and Ex.A5 (certified copy of MVI report), along with the evidence of PW1, to conclude that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver. Further, no contrary evidence has been adduced by the Insurance Company to show that there was negligence on the part of the deceased. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal regarding rash and negligent driving of the lorry cannot be said to be illegal or without any basis.

11. With regard to the