Dismissed¶77

The United India Insurance Company Ltd., v. Meka Anjaiah and 2 Others

Telangana HC3 Jul 2025MACMA/1504/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court (Narsing Rao Nandikonda J, 03.07.2025), MACMA.No.1504 of 2012 — United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meka Anjaiah, Meka Anjali & Liaquat Ali Khan — insurer's appeal dismissed; award of Rs.3,03,500/- with 7.5% interest for death of minor cyclist confirmed; cleaner-driving/no-driving-licence plea rejected (Ex.A13 charge sheet unproved, IO not examined); notional income of minor fixed at Rs.15,000/- p.a.; S.166 claim treated under S.163-A relying on Bhagwati v. Mohd Vokeel (Delhi HC).

What did the court decide?

None to the appellant; the Award and decree of the Tribunal in O.P.No.35 of 2007 dated 19.09.2011 stand confirmed, with no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed. ¶77

The United India Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Meka… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellant; the Award and decree of the Tribunal in O.P.No.35 of 2007 dated 19.09.2011 stand confirmed, with no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed.

¶77

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal rightly assessed the (notional) income of the deceased. +2 more

¶46

Court's answer

Since the deceased was a minor and non-earning member, the notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum taken by the Tribunal under the Second Schedule (Section 163-A) of the MV Act is reasonable and based on ground realities.

¶65

Ratio / Principle

The Insurance Company failed to prove the contents of Ex.A13 charge sheet (that the cleaner drove the crime vehicle without a licence) by not examining the Investigation Officer; RW.3, the driver, deposed that he drove the vehicle, and no rebuttal evidence was adduced; hence there is no documentary evidence that the cleaner was driving at the time of accident.

¶59

Key takeaways

Relying on the Delhi High Court decision in Bhagwati v. Mohd Vokeel, a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the MV Act may be considered under Section 163-A of the MV Act; accordingly the Tribunal's approach cannot be faulted.ratio¶66
The Tribunal rightly considered and granted just compensation to the claimants (respondent Nos. 1 and 2); the Insurance Company's appeal fails and needs no interference.ratio¶75

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Accident Claims — Appeal by insurer under S.173 MV Act against Tribunal award of Rs.3,03,500/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. for the death of a 13–14-year-old schoolboy in a lorry-cyclist collision at Nizamabad (17.11.2006) — Held, dismissing the appeal: (i) insurer failed to prove the contents of Ex.A13 charge sheet that the cleaner, not RW.3 the driver, was driving the offending vehicle without a licence, the Investigating Officer not being examined and no rebuttal evidence led; (ii) notional income of the minor, non-earning deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum under the Second Schedule (S.163-A) MV Act is reasonable; (iii) following the Delhi High Court in Bhagwati v. Mohd Vokeel (2025 SCC OnLine Del 4173), a claim petition filed under S.166 MV Act may be considered under S.163-A — Award and decree of the Tribunal in O.P.No.35 of 2007 dated 19.09.2011 confirmed; no order as to costs.

¶1

[³⁴⁴³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1504 OF 2012

¶7

Appeal filed Under Section^'173 of Motor Vehicles Act,'1988 against the Order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.35 of 2OO7, dated.19l9l2O11 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, at Nizamabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

The United lndia lnsurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, H.No. 7-1-91012,'1st Floor, Pratapreddy Complex, Beside Hotel Mayura, P.B.No. 314, Godown Road, Nizamabad.

¶10

...AppellanUl "t Respondent

¶11

AND

¶12

Meka Anjaiah, S/o Narsing, aged 45years, Occ Supervisor in Sukjith Factory

¶13

Meka Anjali, Wo Anjaiah, aged 40years, Occ Household,

¶14

Respondents 'land 2 are R/o H.No- 6-17-59, Ambedkar Colony, Nizamabad.

¶15

LiaquatAli Khan, S/o Hussain Khan, Major, Occ Owner of Lorry Bearing No. AP 9 -74 R/o H.No 5-2-2001A1 , 132, Osmangunj, C/o Swagat Road Lines, Hyderabad.

¶16

...RespondenU2nd Respondent

¶17

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. KOTA SAMEER KUMAR

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents: M GOUTHAM REDDY

¶19

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶20

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.No. 1504 of 2OL2

¶22

JUDGMENT:

¶23

This M.A.C.M.A is filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, 1988 by the Appellant/ Insurance Company/respondent No.1 against the Award and decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Districr Judge, Nizamabad) (hereinafter referred to 'learned Tribunal') in O.P.No.35 of 2OO7, dated 19.09.2011, wherein claimant filed the claim petition under Section 166 (1) (c) of M.V.Act seeking compensation of Rs.4,O0,00O/ on account of death of Meka Manohar, (herein after referred as 'deceased') who died in Motor Vehicle accident occurred on 17 11.2006

¶24

For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as thcv are arraved before the Tribunal.

¶25

The brief facts of the case are that claimant filed O.P.No.3S of 2OO7 under Section 166(1)(c) of the M.V.Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the death of the deceased, who died in the accident allegeci to have caused due to rash and negligent manner of the Lorry. It is contended that on 17 .11.2006 while deceased was returning from school to the house at about 4.30 P.M., from a cycle, lorry bearing No. AP-09/C O741 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed the

¶26

¶27

AI]VR,J M.,, C u. L No., 5O4 ol 20 I 2

¶28

deceased at Subashnagar, Nizamabad. As a result, they fell^downand sustained grievous injuries all over the body and died on the spot. The Police registered a case against the driver of the offending Lorry.

¶29

The contedtion of the claimant was that, the deceased was aged about 14 years, studying 9th class in Holy.Mary School, Subashnagar, Nizamabad. Apart from his studies, the deceased was selling milk in the morning and evening and earning Rs.3,000/- per month and same was contributing to the welfare of the family and due to his sudden death, the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 who were parents of the deceased lost love and affection of their son and the claimants was put to suffer mental agony, pain and irreparable loss and loss of future dependency. The claimant claimed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased under various heads.

¶30

Before the learned Tribunal, respondent No.2 (owner of the Lorry) filed counter allidavit and contended that the accident was occurred due to negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AP-09/X-O741 by its driver and also contributory negligence of the deceased who was pedalling the cycle on the national high way witJrout observing the traffic rules. Respondent No.1 (The United India Insurance Company Limited) also filed counter affidavit that denying the averments made in the claim petition,

¶31

7-
r'

¶32

¶33

t4tE J X.LC,A./LI.b. I 5O1 ol 2ol2

¶34

including the manner in w,hich the accident took place, and submitted that the compensation claimed is excessive and^prayed to dismiss the claim petition

¶35

Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads as under:

¶36

Whether the accident utos tlrc resultant and outamc of the rash and negligent diung of the lorry beaing No.AP-9/741 bg its diuer?

¶37

Whether the petttioner is entitled for ang ompensatian? If so, to wlLat .iust^omountartd from^{whichof respondents?}

¶38

To what relieJ?

¶39

7 . After perusing the oral and documentary evidences and going into the entire recorcl ancl the evidences placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal alloted the claim in part and granted compensation of Rs.3,O3,5OO/- along $'ith interest @ 7 .5o/o per €ulnum.

¶40

Being unsatisfied and aggrieved by the colossal compensation amount awarded by' the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is hled by the Insurance Company/appellant/respondent No. 1 on the ground that the cleaner of the lorry driver was driving the olfending vehicle at the time of accident a,d )qper the Ex.A13 which clearly demonstrate that the clealer vras driving the vehicle at the materiatr time of accident

¶41

¶42

JYnlR'.r u.A-C.u-L I{o. r 5O4 of 2012

¶43

without a driving license and the learned Tribunal ought to have held that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation as there was no driving license to the person driving the offending vehicle and the same is in gross violation of the conditions of the policy of lnsurance.

¶44

Heard, Srt M.Raui Kumar representing Sri Kota Sameer Kumar learned counsel for the appellalt and Srl M.Gauthann Red.dg, representing, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.l & 2. None represented on behalf of respondent No.3.

¶45

Admittedly, the respondents/claimants have not filed any appeal and cross appeal against the Award passed by the learned Tribunal. As such, the respondents/claimant appears to be satisfied with the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the points ',vhich^{arose beforethis Court in the present appeal is that:}

¶46

Whether the Tribunal has righflg assessed the income of the deceased.

¶47

Whether the Tribunal l:as a uarded excess compensation amount to the claimant, if so, to what erte!&

I
,/'
1) .

-7 ,/t' /a/

Mn., L. A-C-,(.1L tib-, 5O1 ol 20, 2

¶53

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company further contended t]lat the learned Tribuna] has taken the notional income of the deceased Rs.f5,0O0/- as per Second Schedule of Section 163 of M.V.Act., for computing compensation wherein the claim petition was filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act and further contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have seen that the Insurance company is not all [able to pay compensation for the reason that the owner/insured has committed breach as to the terms and conditions of the policy and prayed this Court to set aside the Award passed by the Tribunal and to allow the present appeai.

¶54

Learned counsel for the claimants/ respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that after considering the entire evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal has au'arded the just compensation, hence needs no interference by this Court and prayed this Court to dismiss the appeal.

¶55

Point No.l & 2

¶56

Admittedly, the deceased died due to accident occurred on 17.\L2OO6. As on the clate of accident, the deceased was aged 13 years, hale and healthy arrd n,as studying 9th class in Holy Mary School. PW2, who was the eye-witness clearly deposed before the Tribunal that due to

¶57

¶58

]V}'R,J U.A-C.N.L ito.l sO4 of 2012

¶59

injuries sustained in the accident the deceased died and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent m€ulner of the offending vehicle. RW.3 is the driver of the crime vehicle and his evidence before that Tribunal was that he was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. During the course of hearing before the Tribunal, Insurance Company relied on the contents of Ex,A13 charge sheet, but failed to examine the Investigation Offrcer who prepared and frled the charge sheet. Hence, the Tribunal linds that Insurance Company failed to prove the contents of Ex.A 13 charge sheet by not examining the relevant person as witness to prove that cleaner drove the offending crime vehicle, who does not have the driving licence 3t the time of accident. RW.3 driver of the offending vehicle deposed before the Tribunal that he drove the vehicle at the time of accident and the Insurance Company counsel failed to adduce rebuttal evidence to show that RW.3 was not driving the crime vehicle at the time of accident, therefore this Court also finds that that there is no documentary evidence adduce by the appellant/ lnsurance to prove that the cleaner was driving^{the offending} vehicle at the time of accident.

¶60

As far as computation of compensation is concerned,^{as the} deceased was minor and non-earning member, the^Tribunalhas calculated the notional income of the deceqge5l^{as per Second Schedule}

\ \

7 ,r!{&J A. LC.U.L rlo. t 5O4 ol2Or2

¶65

under Section 163-A of M.V.Act and taking the notional income of the deceased @ Rs. 15,000/- per annum which appears tp be reasonable and based on ground realities.

¶66

The other ground raised by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal cannot grant compensation under 163-A, when the claim petition was filed under Section 166 of M.V.Act. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to look into the judgment of Bhagwatl and others o. Mohd Vokeel (National Insurance Compong) dnd r:nothersl, the Delhi High Court on 22.05.2O25, held that if the claim petition flled under Section 166 ol the M.V.Act may be considered under Section 163,{ of the M.V.Act, r.r'hich is extracted hereunder for ready reference and the para No. l7 reads as:

¶67

As regards tLLe Leamed^'l'ributaL's decision to treat tLe claim under Section 166 of the MV Act as one under Section 163-A of tle MV Act, this Court hos ctlrearly settled the permissibilitg of such anuersion. In Raj Narairt Jlta u. Jagdish and Ors. (M/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd.) : MAC. APP. 383/2017, this Court leld. tlnt a claim filed under Sectiort 166 of tlrc MV Act mag be ansidered under Section 163A of the MV Act Luhere the circumstances so warrant. The Court obserued as under:

¶68

"2. The Court would tote that in terms of the decision of this Court in United IndkL Insurctnce Co. Ltd. us Rita Deut in MAC

¶69

'^{2025 SCCOntineDel4173}

¶70

¶71

¶72

,vlvR,J U-A-C.E L No. I so4 o, 2072

¶73

APP. No. 256/2007 decided on 05.12.2014, tuherein it has been heid inter alia, that the decbion of tle leamed Tribunal to conuert a Claim Petition fiIed under Section 166 to under section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, uas^just and the same could not be faulted uitlt Therefore, in order to ensure that the cloimant uould not be rendered remediless, resulting in miscarriage of^justice, the learned Tlibunal ought t:t haue considered the claim under section 1634 of tte Act and grant of compensation to the claimant under tlle p rinciple of no -fault liabilitg. " "

¶74

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, this

¶75

Court is of the opinion that that the Tribunal has rightly considered arrd granted just compensation to the claimants/respondents Nos.1 and 2 herein and the appeal filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited fails and falls to the ground. As such, needs no interference. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶76

L7. Accordingll,, M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed by confirming the Award and decree passed by the Tribunal in O.P.No.35 of 2OO7, dated 19.09.20 11.

¶77

Miscellaneous petitions, il any are pending, shall stand ciosed.

¶78

SD/- N. SRIHARI EPUTY REGISTRA

//TRUE COPY//

CTION OFFICER

To,

'1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- lll District records, if any)

¶84

ge, Khammam (With

¶85

One CC to SRl. KOTA SAMEER KUMAR Advocate tOpUCI

¶86

One CC to SRl. M GOUTHAM REDDY Advocate tOpUCl

¶87

Two CD Copies

\q-

HIGH COURT

DATED:0310712025

JUDGMENT

cO 0 t iiB l$tt tii.
*
(

¶93

MACMA.No.1504 ot 2012

¶94

DISMISSING THE MACMA

¶95

G *teX
L.
/tror'>

¶96

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶97

IHURSDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶98

PRESENT

¶99

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

¶100

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:^'1504 OF 2012

¶101

Between:

¶102

The United lndia lnsurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, H.No. 7-'l-91on, 1st Floor, Pratapreddy Complex, Beside Hotel Mayura, P.B.No.314, Godown Road, Nizamabad.

¶103

...AppellanUl't Respondent

¶104

AND

¶105

Meka An.jaiah, S/o Narsing, aged 45years, Occ Supervisor in Sukjith Factory

¶106

Meka Anjali, Wo Anjaiah, aged 4Oyears, Occ Household,

¶107

Respondents l and 2 are R/o H.No. 6-17-59, Ambedkar Colony, Nizamabad.

¶108

Liaquat Ali Khan, S/o Hussain Khan, Major, Occ Owner of Lorry Bearing No. AP 9 -74 R/o H.No 5-2-2OO|A1,132, Osmangunj, C/o Swagat Road Lines, Hyderabad.

¶109

...RespondenU2nd Respondent

¶110

Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,'l9BB against the Order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.35 of 2007, dated.19l9l2011 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cumDistrict Judge, at Nizamabad.

¶111

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Case and upon hearing the arguments of SRl. KOTA SAMEER KUMAR ,Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri M GOUTHAM REDDY, Advocate forthe Respondents.

¶112

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows :

¶113

1 . That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is dismissed by confirming the Arnendment and Decree passed by the tribunal in OP No. 35 of 2007 dated 19-9-201 1 ;

¶114