Dismissed

M/s Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pathlavath Harya

Telangana HC7 Oct 2025MACMA/61/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurance company challenged a motor accident compensation award of Rs.9,91,060/- for the death of a bachelor motorcyclist aged 22, disputing notional income, future prospects and conventional heads. The High Court found no error in the Tribunal's computation and dismissed the appeal, confirming the award.

What did the court decide?

None granted; appeal dismissed and Tribunal's award of Rs.9,91,060/- with interest confirmed, no costs.

M/s Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

[^3443l

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE

¶5

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

¶8

Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.20 of 2018 dated 29.08.2019 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

M/s Cholamandalam M.S. General lnsurance Co. Ltd, Represented by its General Manager, Dharma Reddy Colony, lllF, Phase -1, K.P.H.B. Colony, Hyderabad - 500 085

¶11

.. Petitioner/Appel lant

¶12

AND

¶13

Pathlavath Harya, S/o Kamdarya, Age. 55 years, Occ. Nil.

¶14

Pathlavath Bhumika, D/o Harya, Age. 19^years, Occ. Household.

¶15

Both are R/o H.No.4-63, Bowenpally, Secunderabad.

¶16

...Respondent Nos.1 and ?Petitioners

¶17

3 Patnam Rama'Swamy, S/o Narsimulu, Age. Major, Occ. Driver, Rio 11.No.267, Peddarevally Village, Balanagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, Telangana - 509 408.

¶18

¶19

4 Katckereedy Kasi Reddy, S/o Sai Reddy, Age. Major, Occ. Business, R/o H. No.2-67, Peddarevally Village, Balanagar Mandal, Mahab ubnagar District, Telangana - 509 408.

¶20

...Respondents/3 & 4

¶21

IA NO: 2 OF 2020

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to stay the operation of the Order and Decree dated 29-08-2019^passed in M.V.O.P.No.20 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal^-Cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Secunderabad

¶23

¶24

lA NO: 2 OF 20i11

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, ifre Uign Court may be pleased to ygcate the stay orders passed in l.A.No.1 of 2O2O in MACMA.ru-o.O:l of 2020 on 23.01.2020.

¶26

Counsel for the Appeltant: SRt A.RAMAKRTSHNA REDDY

¶27

counsel for the Respondent Nos.l & 2: vLADIMEER KHATOON

¶28

Counset for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4: None Appeared

¶29

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶30

¶31

¶32

THE HON'BLE sRI WSTICEITARSING RAO NANDINONDA M.A.C.M.A.No.61 of o20

¶33

JUDGMEI{T:

¶34

This M.A.C.M.A. is frled by the appellant/Insurance Compan5runder Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 19gg (for short, 'the Act, 1988) against the order and decree, dated 29.0g.2O19,in M.V.O.P.No.20 of 2018 passed by learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, (hereinafter referred to as .the learned Tribunal)wherein the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.9,9l,O60/- with interest @T.So/o per annum to the claimants.

¶35

Heard Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and Ms.VladimeerKhatoom, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Perused the record.

¶36

For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the M.V.O.p.

¶37

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are father and unmarried sister of the deceased pathlavath Srinu

¶38

¶39

¶40

ITRTI IACIrLro.6l of2ClO

¶41

(hereinafte r referred to as 'the deceasedJ filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 and Rule 475 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor V,:hicles Rules, 1989 seeking compensation of Rs. 15,00,Ct00/- from the respondents on account of death of the deceased in a road traffic accident.

¶42

On 14. 11.2017 at about 07.30 PM, while the deceased was proceeding from Shadnagar towards Balyanayak Tanda on a Motorcyclt: bearing No.AP-28-DA-1697 and when he reached near Nagireddy Agricultural Land in tlie outskirts of Peddarevalli, responder:.t No. I, being the driver of tractor-cum-harvester bearing No.AP-22-AG-2674 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner vdth high speed and dashed the deceased from wrong side. Due to which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries all over the body and died on the spot.

¶43

Basing on the complaint, the police Balanagar registered a case in Crime No. 161 of 20 17 under Section 304 (A) of IPC. It is stated that due to sudden death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their earning member in the family and also lost love and affection in the family. It is further stated that t}.e petitioners also facing mental shock and agony and hence, the

¶44

¶45

rrRf, XAC[A.ro.61 ot2Oi2O

¶46

petitioners liled claim petition seeking compensation from the respondents, who are driver, owrler and insurer respectively of the crime vehicle.

¶47

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte.

¶48

Respondent No.3 -lnsurance Company filed counter-

¶49

affidavit denying all the averrnents made in the petition including the method and manner of accident, age, income, profession of the deceased and insurance coverage of the crime vehicle, valid and effective driving licence of both the deceased and the driver of the crime vehicle and dependency of the petitioners on the income of the d.eceased. It is stated that the accid.ent had. taken place only due to the,rash and negligent act on the part of the deceased only and that the owner and insurer of the motorcycle were not added as parties to the claim petition and that the compensation claimed by the petiticiners is on higher side and hence, he prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

¶50

Basing on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

¶51

"(0 Whether the pleaded accident occurred resulting in death to the victim viz., Sri Pathlavath Srinu S/o Har5ra, due to rash and negligent driving { q" driver of Tractor-cum-harvester bearing

¶52

¶53

¶54

rrR,., UACU,A.Itto.61 of 2C2O

¶55

No.AP.22-AG-2674, make :John Deere^{EquipmentPvt., Ltd.,} Model :2Oll?

¶56

(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any^compensation

¶57

and if so, at what quantum?

¶58

(iii) To what relieP"

¶59

lO. In support of the case of t]:e^{petitioners,petitioner No.1} was ex€unined as P.W.1 and also examined^{P.W.2 on his behalf} and got nlarked Exs.A.l to A.4. On behalf^{of respondent No.3,} R.W.1 examined and Ex.B.l-lnsurance^{policy was marked.}

¶60

The learned Tribunal after hearing^{both the counsel} and after considering the entire material^{on record, held that} respondertt No.2, being owner and respondent^{No.3,being insurer} of the vehicle are^jointly and severally^{liable to pay compensation} of Rs.9,9 L,060 /- with interest @7.5o/o^{per annum to the petitioners} as fixed f,y the Tribunal.

¶61

t2. Being aggrieved. by the order and d.ecree^{passedby the} learned llribunal, the appeltant-insurance company^{preferred the} present eppeal on the following among the other grounds:

¶62

(i) It is stated that since the petitioners have failed to prove th,e avocation of the deceased, the learned Tribunal ought

¶63

¶64

¶65

ffRf, IAcfA.fo.6l otzvro

¶66

not to have taken income of the deceased at Rs.9,OOO /- per month, which is erroneous and liable to be set aside

¶67

(ii) It is stated that the Tribunal having treated the deceased as a daity wage labourer, it ought to have taken Rs.4,500 l- per month as notional income by following the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd and othersr, instead of taking Rs.9,000 l- per month.

¶68

(iii) It is stated since the petitioners have not established or proved the monthly income of the deceased, as such the learned Tribunal ought not to have added future prospects.

¶69

(i") It is stated that in case of bachelor, under head of 'Nonconventional heads'the only amount to be awarded is Rs.30,000/but erroneously, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.55,OO0/- which is liable to be bet aside.

¶70

(v) It is stated that the learned Tribunal solely relied on self interested witnesses awarded an amount of RS.9,9L,O6O/with interest @7.5o/o per annum as against Rs.15,00,000/-, which is erroneous and liable to be set aside.

1 Nn zott sc 2951

ilRiJ IAcIA.ro.6l of 2(xto

¶75

Having heard learned Standing Counsel for tl".e

¶76

appellant, learned counsel for the petitioners and havilg pemsed the entire material placed on record, the following points that arise for consid eration are:

¶77

fl) I,hether thc leanted Tdbunal h.,s commlltcd aag crror ln passttfl,g the order aad decree?

¶78

(ll) Whether the appellant-lnstranoe co4pa;ng ls llable to paf, the cotryrensd;tTo to the petltloners or not?

¶79

(lll) To trhat rellefi

¶80

Issue Nos.l to 3:

¶81

The grievance of the appellant-Insurance Company before this Cou::t is that the learned Tribunal ought to have taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- as notional income by following decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramachandrappa v. Manager Royal Sundaram Alliance Ingurance Co.Ltdz but has effoneously taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- without any basis. But, in the impugne I Judgment, the learned Tribunal hetd that basing on the standard s of living, it has fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month and since the age of the

¶82

2 atn zott sc 29st

¶83

¶84

nrRd, XACIA.tro.61 ol2o/lO

¶85

\ \

¶86

deceased was 22 years basing on the decision rendered in National Insurance Company Ltd., and others v. Pranay Sethi and others (Criminalt No.2559O of 2Ol4 earnings of the deceased also increased to 4Oo/o and calculation was done according to the sa.me.

¶87

On pemsal of the Judgment, the learned Tribunal considering the age of the deceased.as 22years, taken the relevant multiplier as '18' and since the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of his income has deducted towards personal expenses calculated loss of earnings of the deceased. Further, the learned Tribunal also decided. ration of 3OP/o : 7Oo/o and the said amount has to be partitioned in the same ratio and same is also needs no interference by this Court.

¶88

The contention of the appellant is that as per the judgment of the Pranay Sethi's case additional amounts i.e., future prospects arise only once the deceased^{had establishedhis} income. He also argued and contended that the^deceased income neither established nor proved and in spite of there being a^non ascertained/ quantified income, tJ e future^prospectus cannot^be added. But the main grievance of the appellant to extent^of

¶89

¶90

rf,R,J IACf,,A.IIo.61 oI2(}{2O

¶91

awarding of compensation is no dispute. Regarding liability this Court do not see any error committed by the Tribunal in awarding compensertion and the appellant has not made out any^ground to interfere with the said findings and^judgment passed by the learned Tribunal. Hence, for the said reasons, the issues are answered against the appellant and in favour of the petitioners / claimants / respondents.

¶92

. 17. In result, the appeal is dismissed confirming order and decree, clated 29.O8.2OL9, in M.V.O.P.No.2O of 2018 passed by learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶93

Miricellaneous petitions, if a:ry are pending, shall stand

¶94

closed.

¶95

SD'- M.OSMAN^{ALI BAIG} ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR * G

¶96

,/TRUE COPY/

¶97

SECTION^OFFICER

¶98

To, 1. The chairman^{Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-lAdditionalchief Judge'} City Civil Court,^{Secunderabad.}

¶99

One^{rlc to sRl A.RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, Advocate[oPUC]}

¶100

¶101

One cc^{to sRl VLADIMEER KHATOON, Advocate[oPUC]}

¶102

Two CD^CoPies

¶103

AS/nvb

¶104

¶105

I : .';trr ' '',' ;{Hl!qi

¶106

.-c

¶107

.-''l
, .it' '
..-ti i
!)
:
t
l- r
4
n
s
:!"
'ri
a
fi*
':::'$'i

\ \

HIGH COIJRT

DATED:0,111012025

I
I
.( 'r{E SI4 I
I
,i, I
()o 1 2 t EB am

¶113

JUDGMENT+DECREE

¶114

MACMA.No.61 of 2020

¶115

DtsMlsstNg THE MACMA WTTHOUT COSTS

V
c?J
gt<br>

[³⁴⁴³ I

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶120

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE ,!

¶121

PRESENT

¶122

THE HONOURABLE SRt JUSTICE NARSING^{RAONANDIKONDA} c

¶123

Between:

¶124

M/s Cholamandalam M.S. General lnsurance^{Co. Ltd, Representedby its} General Manager, Dharma Reddy Colony,^{lllF, Phase-1, K.P.H.B. Colony,} Hyderabad - 500 085

¶125

.. Petitioner/Appellant

¶126

AND

¶127

1 Pathlavath Harya, S/o Kamdarya, Age.^{55 years, Occ. Nil.}

¶128

2 Pathlavath Bhumika, D/o Harya, Age.^{19 years, Occ. Household.}

¶129

R/o H.No.4-63, Bowenpally, Secunderabad.

¶130

..Respondent Nos.l and 2/Petitioners

¶131

Patnam Rama Swamy, S/o^{Narsimulu, Age. Major, Occ. Driver, Rio 11.No.2-'} 67, Peddarevally Village, Balanagar^{Mandal, MahabubnagarDistrict,} Telangana - 509 408.

¶132

Katckereedy Kasi Reddy, S/o^{Sai Reddy,Age. Mqjor, Occ..Business,R/o} H.No.2-67, Peddarevally Village, BalanagaiMandal,^{MahabubnagarDistrict,} Telangana -'509 408.

¶133

...ResPondents/3 & 4^.

¶134

Appeal under Section 173 of^{MotorVehicles Act against the order and decree} in M.V.O.P.No.20 of 2018 dated^{29.08.2019 on the file of the Court of the Chairman} Motor Accident'Claims Tribunal-cum-l^{AdditionalChief Judge, City CivilCourt,} Secunderabad.

¶135

This appeal coming on for hearing^{and upon perusing the grounds of} appeal, the^judgment and Decree of the^{Lower Court and the material papersin} the case and upon hearing the argument^{of Sri A.Rama Krishna Reddy, Advocate}

¶136

for the Appellant and Sri Vladimeer Khatoon, Advocate, for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2, and none Appeared for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4

¶137

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶138

That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is dismisse'd confirming order and decree dt 29.08.2019 in M.V.O.p.No.20 of 2018 Psrssed by I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

¶139