Dismissed¶¶37

M/S. National Insurance Company Limited, v. Lalam Lavanya

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Feb 2026MACMA/441/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MACMAPP No.441/2020, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, Justice T.C.D. Sekhar, decided 12.02.2026. National Insurance Company Ltd. (appellant) v. Lalam Lavanya and others (claimants) and others. Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act claim; fatal accident 16.09.2008, car AP 31 AW 3763; Tribunal award Rs.6,46,200/- plus 7.5% interest upheld. Key themes: drunken-driving defence by insurer, breath analyzer evidence, insufficiency of proof of driver intoxication, dismissal of insurer's appeal, no costs.

What did the court decide?

The evidence of R.W.1 (employee of the insurance company) said nothing about the driver of the offending vehicle being under the influence of alcohol, and therefore does not help prove the appellant's case. ¶¶31

M/S. National Insurance Company Limited, Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010321022020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

[3505]

¶4

THURSDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

¶7

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:

¶8

441/2020

¶9

Between:

¶10

M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, DABAGARDENS, VISAKHAPATNAM

¶11

...APPELLANT

¶12

AND

¶13

LALAM LAVANYA, , W/O. LATE APPALANAIDU, HINDU, AGED 28 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O. KONEMPALEM(V) ATCHUTAPURAM (M), VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶14

LALAM MUTYALA LEELA SAI MUTYALA SAI, S/O. LATE APPALANAIDU, HINDU, AGED 11 YEARS, R/O. KONEMPALEM(V), ATCHUTAPURAM (M), VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶15

LALAM SOMULAMMA, W/O. NARASAYYA, HINDU, AGED 72 YEARS, R/O. KOTHUR VILLAGE, KOTAVURATLA (M), VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ( 2ND RESPONDENT BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER, NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL GUARDIAN 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN.)

¶16

¶17

HARI NAIDU BHARAT NAIDU, , S/O. C.B. BABU NAIDU, AGE 37 YEARS, R/O. VUDA COLONY, GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶18

M/S A R S S INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT LTD, REP.BY K.V. RAMANA MURTHY, HINDU, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS BUT MAJOR, R/O. DOOR NO.50-5039, SRI SAI MATHA NILAYAM, TPT COLONY, SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶19

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶20

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶21

1.VENKATESWARLU PALADUGU

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶23

1.E VENKATA REDDY

¶24

The Court made the following:

¶25

¶26

JUDGMENT:-

¶27

The present appeal is filed M/s.National Insurance Company Limited, aggrieved by order dated 08.08.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.726 of 2015 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam.

¶28

Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs.800,000/- on account of the death of one Lalam Appala Naidu (hereinafter called as deceased) stating that accident was occurred on 16.09.2008 in which the offending car bearing registration No.AP 31 AW 3763 was involved. The Tribunal after hearing the parties awarded an amount of Rs.6,46,200/- towards compensation together with interest @ 7.5% p.a.

¶29

Though the present appeal is filed on various grounds, during the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued the case on the only ground that during the time of accident, the driver of the offending car was under the influence of alcohol and therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation. In order to prove the contention of the

¶30

¶31

appellant, the appellant has got examined one Sri A.Venugopal Rao as R.W.1 employee of the insurance company and got marked attested copy of the policy through him. On perusal of the evidence of R.W.1, it is clear that he did not speak anything about the factum of the driver of the offending vehicle was under the influence of alcohol. Therefore, the evidence of R.W.1 will not help to prove the case of the appellant herein.

¶32

Further, it is specifically contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the R.W.2, who investigated the crime which was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle, deposed that the driver was under the influence of alcohol, when he was tested with breath analyzer. Except the evidence of R.W.2, nothing is placed on record to show that the driver of the offending vehicle was under the influence of alcohol.

¶33

Therefore, the contention of the appellant that, the driver of the offending vehicle was under the influence of the alcohol cannot be believed without there being any evidence placed on record.

¶34

¶35