Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 18236
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
B.R.Madhusudhan Rao, J
National Insurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Jeedimetla Madhavi – Respondent
MACMA.No.2799 of 2018
In a motor vehicle accident case, if a person travels as an unauthorized passenger in a goods vehicle, the insurer may be directed to pay the compensation and recover the amount from the vehicle owner.
Headnote:The appeal concerns the determination of liability and quantum of compensation in a motor vehicle accident claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, specifically exploring the status of passengers in goods vehicles. The court assessed the validity of the insurance coverage and the appropriateness of the compensation calculation involving personal expenses, future prospects, and consortium. Key issues included whether the deceased was an unauthorized passenger and whether the insurance company was liable to indemnify the owner. The Court, citing principles from established precedents, determined the liability of the owner and the insurer, while adjusting the compensation amount to reflect current standards for loss of dependency and consortium. The appeal was partly allowed, with the compensation enhanced from the tribunal's award, and specific directions were issued regarding the liability and recovery rights of the insurer.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural background and summary of lower tribunal findings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. appellate arguments regarding liability and just compensation. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. assessment of evidence and recalculation of compensation damages. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. final order on liability sharing and disbursement of compensation. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
Between:
The National Insurance Company Limited, Khammam,
Represented by its Manager,
Regional Office, Abids, Hyderabad.
… Appellant – Respondent No.2
And
1.Jeedimetla Madhavi and four others
… Respondents – Petitioners
6. Shaik Mahaboob Subhani and another
… Respondents - Respondent Nos.1&3
JUDGMENT
1. This Memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the MV Act’), assailing the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - Judge, Family Court - cum – VI Additional District Judge at Khammam (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MVOP.No.659 of 2013 dated 01.08.2018.
2. Appellant is respondent No.2, respondent Nos.1 to 5 are the petitioners, respondent Nos.6 and 7 are respondent Nos.1 and 3 in MVOP.No.659 of 2013.
3. Notice got issued to respondent No.6 – respondent No.1 is returned as no such person, which is sent to the address mentioned in the claim petition which is deemed service as per Section 27 of General Clauses Act, 1897. Furthermore he remained ex parte before the Tribunal. Notice got issued to respondent No.7 – respondent No.3 in the appeal is refused.
4. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 - petitioners have filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the death of Jeedimetla Nageswar Rao, who died in the motor vehicle accident.
5. Respondent Nos.6 and 7 – respondent Nos.1 and 3 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.
6. Appellant – respondent No.2 filed counter and denied the manner in which the accident has taken place.
7. Respondent No.1 - petitioner No.1 is examined as PW1, also examined PW2 – Polagani Karraiah alias Kiran Kumar and got marked Exs.A1 to A12. Assistant Manager of the appellant is examined as RW1 – J.S.C.Mohan, also examined RW2 - Mohammad Tabrer Aulam and got marked Ex.B1 and Exs.X1 and X2.
8. The learned Tribunal after analyzing the evidence adduced by the parties has awarded an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of realization fastening the liability on the appellant - respondent No.2.
9. The award is silent with regard to the liability on respondent No.6 – respondent No.1. The claim petition against respondent No.3 (respondent No.7 herein) is dismissed.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant – respondent No.2 submits that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding an amount of Rs.7,00,000/-, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 proves that the deceased was unauthorized passenger in the offending vehicle, also erred in fixing the liability on the appellant – respondent No.2 opining that the deceased was travelling with goods in the said lorry, ought to have fastened the liability on respondent No.6 - owner of the vehicle alone, ought to have exonerated the appellant - respondent No.2 and failed to look into the evidence of RW1 and RW2 with that of Exs.B1, X1 and X2. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decision in the cases of (i) Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Brij Mohan and Others 1AIR 2007 Supreme Court 1971, (ii) Amudhavalli and Others Vs. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited and others 22025 SCC OnLine SC 2262, (iii) Kaminiben and Others Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others 32026 LiveLaw (SC) 174 and (iv) Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Bondili Sitharam Singh and Others41995 (1) ALT 696.
11. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 - petitioners submits that the learned Tribunal
