BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
-CUM- V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KHAMMAM.
Tuesday, this the 12th day of May, 2026
Present:Vasukula Sreenaiah Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- V Additional District Judge, Khammam
MVOP No. 138 of 2023
Between:
1. Bolloju Kameswari, W/o:Surya Rao, Age:60 years, Occ:House hold.
2. Bolloju Mallikarjun Rao, S/o:Surya Rao, Age:47 years, Occ:Nil 3. Bolloju Ravi Kumar W/o:Surya Rao, Age:47 years, Occ:Coolie
All are presently residing at H.No.1-28, Thanikella Village, Konijerla Mandal, Khammam District N/o:H.No.1-175/1, Ramarao peta, Seetha Rampuram, Khammam. …Claim Petitioners
AND
Devendla Akhil, S/o:Srinu, Age:Major, Occ:Driver R/o:H.No.2-1, 1. Bimavaram village, Ulavapadu Mandal, Prakasham District.
2.Chandragiri Ramu S/o:Ankaiah, Age:34 years, Occ:Owner of Motor cycle bearing No.TS-28-F-1563, Venkateswara Colony, Bhadrachalam Town and Mandal, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District.
3.The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Kothagudem rep.by its BM, through Local Branch, Khammam D.No.9-3-143, Old Club Road, Near Vinodha mahal, Khammam Town and District Policy No.61360131190800001596 valid from 10.05.2019 to 09.05.2024.
..Respondents
This petition is coming before me on 08.05.2026 for final hearing, in the presence of Smt Y.Kranthi Kumari , Learned counsel for the claimpetitioners; Sri M.Saideswar rao, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri G.Sita
MVOP No.138 of 2023 Page 2 of 23
Rama Rao, learned counsel for Respondent No.3, upon perusal of the material papers on record; and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal delivered the following:
:: O R D E R ::
1.The present petition is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, by Claim Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 against Respondent Nos.1 to 3 seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) together with interest @18% per annum from the date of the accident till the date of realization on account of the death of Bolloju Surya Rao, in a motor vehicle accident.
2. The averments in the petition in nutshell are, as follows:
2.1On 15.12.2021, the deceased/Bolloju Surya Rao, went to his agricultural fields on his TVS XL motorcycle bearing No.AP-20-AN-8173, at about 10:00 a.m., when he reached at the outskirts of Kotha Danthenam Village,
Dummugudem Mandal, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District, meantime a motorcycle bearing No.TS-28-F-1563, which was coming from behind and being ridden in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained severe injuries all over his body. Immediately after the accident, the deceased was shifted to Nikhil Hospital, Bhadrachalam and thereafter shifted to Care
Hospital, Hyderabad for better treatment. Due to his critical condition he was
12 th May, 2026 V ADJ
MVOP No.138 of 2023 Page 3 of 23
again shifted to Nikhil Hospital, Bhadrachalam where he succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. The accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of motorcycle bearing registration
No.TS-28-F-1563, i.e., Respondent No.1.
2.2 Upon the complaint P.S. Dummugudem registered a case in
Cr.No.142/2021 under Section 304(A) of I.P.C against the rider of the motor cycle bearing No.TS-28-F-1563.
2.3 Prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy. At the time of the accident he was aged about 65 years and owned Ac.10.00 guntas of agricultural land. He was cultivating the said land and earning an annual income of about Rs.2,00,000/-. The claim petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased and were fully dependent on his earnings. The deceased used to support and maintain the entire family of the petitioners. Claim Petitioner
No.1, being the wife of the deceased, lost her husband, life partner his love and affection and also lost the conjugal life and happiness of married life at her advanced age. Claim Petitioner Nos.2 and 3, being the sons of the deceased lost their father and were deprived of his parental care and affection. Considering the loss of earnings of the deceased and the loss of love and affection suffered by the petitioners, they are entitled to claim
12 th May, 2026 V ADJ
MVOP No.138 of 2023 Page 4 of 23
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- towards general and special damages.
2.4.The respondent No.1 is the rider, respondent No.2 is the owner and respondent No.3 is the insurer of the crime vehicle i.e. Motor cycle bearing
No.TS-28-F-1563. As such all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
3.Upon receipt of notice, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the
Tribunal through their counsel but failed to file their counter. Hence, their right to file the counter was forfeited.
4.Respondent No.3/Insurance company, filed counter and categorically denied all material averments in the claim petition. In the counter it is denied the alleged involvement of the crime vehicle i.e. Motor cycle bearing No.TS- 28-F-1563 in the accident, the manner in which the accident occurred, as well as the deceased’s stated age, occupation, income etc. It is further contended that at the time of accident, the driver of the crime vehicle i.e. respondent
No.1 was not holding valid and effective driving license to drive the crime vehicle. The Respondent No.3 further contended that the compensation claimed is highly exaggerated and the interest rate sought is excessive.
Invoking protections under Sections 145(b), 145(d), 146, 147, and 149 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, Respondent No.3 asserted that its liability, if any, is subject to the statutory conditions and defenses available under Sections 147,
12 th May, 2026 V ADJ
MVOP No.138 of 2023 Page 5 of 23
149 (2) and 170. The R3/Insurance company further submitted that due to non joinder of proper parties i.e. owner and insurer of the TVS XL Motor Cycle bearing No.AP-20-AN-8173 the claim petition is liable to be dismissed and the r3/insurance company also took other statutory defences and prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition in its entirety.
5. Basing on the contentions of the Claim Petitioner and the
Respondents, the following issues are settled for trial:
1. Whether the accident occurred on 15.12.2021 at 10:00
hours at Kotha Danthenam village, Dummugudem
Mandal, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District, due to rash and
negligent driving of motor cycle bearing No.TS-28-F-1563
by 1 st respondent?
2. Whether Bolloju Surya Rao, received injuries in that accident and died because of the injuries?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim
compensation? if so to what amount and from which of
the respondents?
4. To what relief?
6.During the course of trial, on behalf of the claim petitioners P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of Respondent
Nos.1 and 2, Respondent No.2 was examined as R.W.2 and no documents were marked. On behalf of Respondent No.3, the Deputy Manager of the insurance company was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked.
7.The learned counsel for Respondent No.3 filed written arguments and stated that at the time of the accident the driver of the motor cycle
12 th May, 2026 V ADJ
MVOP No.138 of 2023 Page 6 of 23
bearing No.TS-28-F-1563, was not holding valid driving license to drive said motor cycle, as such police have filed the case against the rider and owner of the said motor cycle bearing No.TS-28-F-1563 as accused Nos.1 and 2. The respondent No.2 willfully and knowingly well that he was not authorized to drive the motor cycle, as such, has contravened the provision of the M.V. act and the Rules framed there under and has committed the breach of terms and condition of the policy. Hence, in view of above stated breach of contract made by the Respondent No.2, alone liable to pay the compensation to the claim petitioner and this respondent company has not liability to pay the compensation to the claim petitioners. Hence, Respondent No.3 praying the
Court to dismiss the claim against the respondent No.3 company.
8.The Respondent No.3 has filed a petition under sec.170 of MV Act with a prayer to to take all defences available to the insurance company and accordingly the said petition was allowed.
ISSUE No.1 and 2 :
9.These two issues are interrelated with each other, as such these two issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience. In the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1998, the finding of negligence has to be recorded on preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, both petitioners and respondents must lead
12 th May, 2026 V ADJ
MVOP No.138 of 2023 Page 7 of 23
appropriate evidence in support of their claim. The general purport of the word “res ipsa loquitor” is that the accident “speaks for itself ” or “ tells its own story”. The right of the victim in a road accident to claim compensation is a statutory one.
10.On behalf of the petitioners, the 2nd claimant who is the son of deceased Surya Rao examined himself as P.W.1 and he has filed an affidavit in lieu of his chief-examination as contemplated under Order-XVIII, Rule-4 (1) of
C.P.C. His evidence is nothing but replica of petition pleadings.
11. According to the Petitioners, the Petitioner No.1 is the wife and claim-petitioners No.2 and 3 are the sons of the deceased Surya Rao.
PW1 is the son of deceased-Surya Rao. But he is not an eye witness to the alleged accident. P.W-2, who is an eyewitness to the accident deposes that on 15.12.2021, at about 10.00 hours himself and one Siddi
Yesu Babu are chichatting at R&B road, at the outskirts of their village, meanwhile one Bolloju Surya Rao was proceeding on his TVS XL motor cycle bearing No.AP-20-AN-8173 at the left side of the road by wearing helmet, while he reached at the outskirts of Kotha Danthenam village,
Dummugudem mandal, at at about 10-00 hours, one Motor cycle bearing No.TS-28-F-1563 was proceeding from his behind which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and
12 th May, 2026 V ADJ
MVOP No.138 of 2023 Page 8 of 23
dashed against the motor cycle of the Bolloju Surya Rao, resulting he fell down on the road and received head injury and other multiple injuries all over the body. Immediately he was shifted to Nikhil Hospital,
Bhadrachalam and due to serious condition of the injured he was shifted to care hospital, Hyderabad for better treatment, where he succumbed to injuries.
12. P.Ws-1 and 2 categorically stated that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of the Motor cycle bearing No.TS-28-F-1563, and caused death of the deceased.
13.P.Ws-1 and 2 denied the suggestion that the accident was occurred due to negligence of the deceased. As seen from the complaint enclosed to the First Information Report (Ex.A-1) and Charge- sheet (Ex.A2), is sufficient to conclude that P.W-2 is an eyewitness to the accident. Even though P.Ws-1 and 2 were examined in cross nothing has been elicited to disbelieve their testimonies.
14.Added to it, in support of their contention, the petitioners have filed certified copies of First Information Report with complaint (Ex.A- 1), Charge-sheet (Ex.A-2), Post Mortem Examination Report (Ex.A-3),
Inquest Report (Ex.A4), CC of CDF (Ex.A5), Copy of MVI Report (Ex.A6),
Discharge summary issued by Sai Krishna Super Specialty hospital,
12 th May, 2026 V ADJ
MVOP No.138 of 2023 Page 9 of 23
Hyderabad (Ex.A7), Final medical bill for Rs.1,20,000/- issued by Care
Hospital, Hyderabad.
15.It is not in dispute that the police Dummugudem registered the case in Crime No.142 of 2021, under Section 304-A IPC and Sec.3 r/w 181 of MV Act and on completion of investigation, the Investigation
Officer has filed charge-sheet (Ex.A-2) U/sec.304-A of IPC and Sec.3 r/w 181 of MV Act against the driver of the crime vehicle, which prima facie reveals that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Motor cycle bearing No.TS-28-F-1563 but not due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle as mentioned under Ex.A6-
MVI Report.
16. In Bimla Devi & Others V. Himachal Road Transport
Corporation & Others1, Kaushnumma Begum and others v/s New
India Assurance Company Limited2 and in National Insurance Co. Ltd.
V. Pushpa Rana3, it has been held that:
“the negligence has to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view is to be taken. It has been further held that the proceedings under the Motor 1(2009) 13 SC 530 2 2001 ACJ 421 SC 3 2009 ACJ 287
12 th May, 2026 V ADJ
MVOP No.138 of 2023 Page 10 of 23
Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a Civil Suit and hence, strict rules of evidence are not applicable”.
17.In Sunitha and others V. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and another4 Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:
“it is settled that in motor vehicle accident claim cases, once the foundational fact, namely, the actual occurrence of the accident, has been established, the Tribunal’s role would be to calculate the quantum of just compensation, if the accident had taken place by reason of negligence of the driver of motor vehicle and while doing so, the Tribunal would not be strictly bound by pleadings of the parties”.
18.In ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd Versus Rajani Sahoo &
Ors (SLP (C) No. 29302 of 2019 dated 02.01.2025) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:
“Thus, there can be no dispute with respect to the position that the
question regarding negligence which is essential for passing an award
in a motor vehicle accident claim should be considered based on the
evidence available before the Tribunal. If the police records are avail-
able before the Tribunal, taking note of the purpose of the Act it can-
not be said that looking into such documents for the aforesaid pur-
pose is impermissible or inadmissible”.
19.As per Ex.A2, the charge sheet, it is categorically concluded that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent. On perusal of the material on record and in view of the citations referred supra, this Tribunal holds that the petitioners have established that 4 Civil Appeal No. 1665 of 2019 decided on 14.02.2019
12 th May, 2026 V ADJ
MVOP No.138 of 2023 Page 11 of 23
the death of deceased-Surya Rao, was on account of rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle Motor cycle bearing No.TS-28-F- 1563. Accordingly, these issues are answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE No.3:
20.As per the settled principles of law, three factors are to be determined where the death of the deceased occurred in motor vehicle accident and such aspects are 1) the Age of the deceased, ii) Income of the deceased and iii) Number of dependents of the deceased. Once these factors are ascertained, it will fall as a necessary corollary to determine the quantum of compensation on the basis of mathematical calculations. The petitioners have filed the present petition claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- along with future interest @ 18% per annum and costs.
Age and Income of the deceased:
21.According to the petitioners, the deceased-Surya Rao was aged about 65 years. In support of their case Pw1 has not filed any proof of document, as such, this court is consider the age as per PME Report under Ex.A3. As per the
Postmortem Examination Report(Ex.A3), the age of the deceased-Surya Rao is mentioned as 68 year as on the date of accident. As such, the age of the deceased at the time of accident is 68 years. Considering the undisputed
12 th May, 2026 V ADJ
MVOP No.138 of 2023 Page 12 of 23
material on record, this Tribunal considers the age of the deceased as 68 years as on the date of accident, for the purpose of fixing compensation, which is not disputed by the respondents.
22.According to the petitioners, the deceased- Surya Rao was aged 68 years and he was hale and healthy prior to the accident and he was having 10 acres of own agricultural patta land and he used to earn Rs.2,00,000/- per annum. In support of their case, the claim-petitioners have not examined any person to prove the income of the deceased.
23. Considering the available evidence on record and evidence of PW1, this Tribunal holds that the age of the deceased as 68 years and his income as
Rs.12,000/- per month, which comes to Rs.12,000/-per annum as on the date of accident, for the purpose of fixing compensation.
24. As per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited Vs Pranay Sethi and others 5wherein their lordships held that:
(iii) ‘In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component’
25.On applying the principles as laid down in the case of Sarala Verma V.
5(2017) 16 SCC 1093
12 th May, 2026 V ADJ
MVOP No.138 of 2023 Page 13 of 23
Delhi Transport Corporation and National Insurance Company Ltd., V.
Pranay Sethi and others, since the deceased was aged about 68 years, there should be no additional income towards future prospects. As such, the petitioner is used to earn Rs.1,44,000/- per annum.
26.The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Smt Sarala
Varma Vs Delhi Transport Corporation and others6, wherein their lordships held that:
“Where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one- fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six”.
27.In the present case on hand, the deceased was married and at the time of death of the deceased, the number of dependents are three. Therefore, out of the above said income of Rs.1,44,000/-, a sum of Rs.48000/- (Rs.144000 X 1/3) has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses.
Hence, after deducting 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards personal and living expenses of the deceased come to sum of Rs.96,000/- would be the contribution of the deceased to his family.
28.The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Smt Sarala 6(2009) 6 SCC 121
12 th May, 2026 V ADJ
MVOP No.138 of 2023 Page 14 of 23
Varma Vs Delhi Transport Corporation and others 7 , wherein their lordships held that where the deceased was in the age group of 66 to 70 years, the multiplier applied is “5”. Therefore, after applying the above said multiplier “5” to the income of the deceased comes to Rs.4,80,000/- (Rs.96,000 x5).
29.The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of National
Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Pranay Sethi and others 8 , wherein their lordships held that while awarding compensation, the Tribunal has to award reasonable figures on the conventional heads namely loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses at Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/-.
As such, this tribunal has to award an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- towards Loss of consortium and an amount of
Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. The petitioner Nos.2 and 3 being children, who lost their father, as such, they are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of love and affection of the deceased, as per the principles laid down in M.Mansoor and another V. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. in total
Rs.80,000/- towards love and affection. Therefore, the aforesaid amounts should be awarded to the claimants.
MEDICAL EXPENSES:
30. As per the version of petitioners, they have spent an amount of 7(2009) 6 SCC 121 8(2017) 16 SCC 680
12 th May, 2026 V ADJ
MVOP No.138 of 2023 Page 15 of 23
Rs.1,20,000/- towards medical expenses of the deceased. In support of their case PW1 filed Ex.A7 discharge summary and Ex.A8 final bill for
Rs.1,20,000/-. Considering the evidence of PW1 and Ex.A7, this Tribunal holds that the petitioners are entitled for total amount of
Rs.1,20,000/-, under the head of medical expenditure.
31. The petitioners are entitled for total compensation as under:
1Towards Loss of Dependency:Rs.4,80,000-00 2Towards loss consortium : Rs.40,000-00 3Towards Loss of Estate :Rs.15,000-00 4Towards Funeral Expenses : Rs.15,000-00 5Towards love and affection :Rs.80,000-00
Medical bills:Rs.1,20,000-00 Total : Rs.7,50,000/-
The claim petitioners are entitled to claim a total compensation of
Rs.7,50,000/-(Rupees Seven lakhs fifty thousands only)
32. No doubt, the petitioners have filed application claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- only. There is no doubt that the Tribunal has ample power to award a just and equitable, fair and reasonable compensation as held in
Rajesh and others V. Rajbir Singh and others. 9
In Nagappa V. Gurudayal Singh and others, 10 and United India
Insurance Company Limited V. Veluchamy and another, 11 wherein it is 9 2013 ACJ 1403 10 2003 ACJ 12 (SC) 11 2005 ACJ 1483
12 th May, 2026 V ADJ
MVOP No.138 of 2023 Page 16 of 23
held that the Tribunal has to award just compensation and that the
Tribunal may award more compensation than what is claimed by the claimants.
33. Under these circumstances, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the amount arrived in the above paras may be awarded to the petitioners and the petitioners may be directed to pay the deficit court fee on the amount of compensation awarded in excess of their claim.
34. Apportionment:
Sl. No. To whom Amount
1.1st petitioner (wife)Rs.4,50,000/-
2.2nd and 3rd petitioners (sons)Rs.1,50,000/- each
Liability :
35.According to the petitioners, 1st respondent is the driver, second respondent is the owner and the 3rd respondent is the Insurer of the crime vehicle Motor cycle bearing No.TS-28-F-1563. Admittedly, Respondent
Nos.1 and 2 has not entered into witness box, but on behalf of Respondent
No.3, Rws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B1 to B3 marked.
36.On behalf of the 3rd respondent, the Manager (Legal litigation) was examined as R.W-1. He deposed that the insurance policy under Ex.B1 vide policy No.61360131190800001596 valid from 10.05.2019 to 09.05.2024. to cover the Motor cycle bearing No.TS-28-F-1563, during the cross-
12 th May, 2026 V ADJ
MVOP No.138 of 2023 Page 17 of 23
examination it is admitted by RW1 that as on the date of accident the insurance policy was in force. His evidence is also nothing but replica of their counter.
37.RW1 further deposed that at the time of accident the driver of the crime vehicle was not holding valid license, in support of their version,
RW2 was examined and filed Ex.B2-Notice issued by the R3 company to rider and Ex.B3- Notice issued to owner of the crime vehicle. RW2 deposed that at the time of accident the driver of the crime vehicle was not holding valid driving license. On perusal of Ex.B2 and B3 shows that the respondent No.1 is not having valid driving license at the time of alleged accident, as such, R1 has not satisfied the requirements of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Cycle Rules, 1989.
38.In the case of third party risks, as per the decision in National
Insurance Company Ltd. V. Swaran Singh and others,12 the Insurer had to indemnify the compensation amount payable to the third party and the insurance company may recover the same from the insured. Doctrine of "pay and recover" was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Swaran Singh case, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court examined the liability of the insurance company in cases of breach of policy condition due to disqualifications of the driver or invalid driving licence of the driver and held 12(2004) 3 SCC 297
12 th May, 2026 V ADJ
MVOP No.138 of 2023 Page 18 of 23
that in case of third party risks, the insurer has to indemnify the compensation amount to the third party and the insurance company may recover the same from the insured.
39.It is well settled law that even though the driver of the crime vehicle was not holding driving licence, the Insurance Company cannot escape, from their liability to pay compensation to the petitioner, as the policy was in force as on that date. Where the driver did not possess the valid driving licence and there are, breach of policy conditions, “ pay and recover ” can be ordered, in case of third party risks.
40.In the decision reported in in the case of Parminder Singh V.
New India Assurance Company Limited and others,13 the Hon'ble Apex
Court has observed as under:
"7.1. This Court in Shamanna v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., held that if the driver of the offending vehicle does not possess a valid driving licence, the principle of "pay and recover" can be ordered to direct the insurance company to pay the victim, and then recover the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle. It is further held that, it is just and fair to direct the respondent insurance company to pay the enhanced amount of compensation and recover the amount from the owners and drivers of the offending vehicle."
41.In a citation Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company 13(2019) 7 SCC 217
12 th May, 2026 V ADJ
MVOP No.138 of 2023 Page 19 of 23
Limited, Cuddapah V. Acchigari Prasad,14wherein it was held that:
“Owner has obligation to take adequate care and see that driver had appropriate licence to drive the vehicle- Therefore, in view of 2004 (4) ALD 36 (SC), appellant Insurance company, directed to first pay awarded amount to claimants and then recover same from owner of crime vehicle, by initiating proceedings before Executing Court without filing a separate suit for said purpose.”
42.In the present case on hand, the material on record goes to show that the driver of the crime vehicle Motor cycle bearing No.TS-28-F-1563, by name Surya Rao was not holding driving licence at the relevant time of accident. In view of the citations referred supra and facts of the present case hand, the 3rd respondent is directed to first pay awarded amount to the petitioner and then recover same from the respondent Nos.1 and 2, by initiating proper proceedings.
43.On perusal of policy copy/Ex.B1, the respondent No.3 issued policy
No.61360131190800001596 valid from 10.05.2019 to 09.05.2024 and the said policy was in force as on the date of alleged accident. Since it is clearly established that the accident was occurred on 15.12.2021 rash and negligent act of driver of crime vehicle- Motor cycle bearing No.TS-28-F-1563, and the Respondent No.1 is the driver, 2nd respondent is the owner, R3 is the
Insurer of the Crime vehicle. Hence, all the Respondents are jointly and 142015 (1) ALD 75
12 th May, 2026 V ADJ
MVOP No.138 of 2023 Page 20 of 23
severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
44.Rate of interest: The petitioners are claiming interest @ 12% per annum. As per the principles, laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Supe Dei (smt) and others v. National Insurance Company Limited [(2009) 4 SCC 513] confirming the judgment in Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd [(2001) 2 SCC 9] held that in motor accident cases interest at 9% is appropriate. Hon’ble Supreme Court in (1) Anjani Singh v Saluddin [(2014) 15
SCC 582], (2) Syed Sadiq v United India Insurance Co. Ltd [(2014) 2 SCC 735] and (3)Chanderi Singh v Jaspal Singh [(2015) 11 SCC 703] following the judgment in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Association of Victims of
Uphaar Tragedy and others [(2011) 14 SCC 481] held that 9% interest can be awarded from the date of filing of the claim till date of realization. Therefore, following the rulings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, 9% interest per annum can be awarded from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
45. ISSUE No.4: In view of findings and conclusions on the above issues, the petitioners are entitled for compensation from the respondents. Accordingly, this issue is answered.
46.RESULT:
(i)IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed by awarding a total
12 th May, 2026 V ADJ
MVOP No.138 of 2023 Page 21 of 23
compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven lakhs fifty thousands only) with proportionate costs against the respondents and they are jointly and severally liable to pay the same, with subsequent interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit of the amount; ii) The Respondent No.3 is directed to first pay the awarded amount to the petitioner within TWO months from the date of this award, and then recover the same from the Owner of crime vehicle/Respondent No.2 by initiating proceedings without filing a separate suit for said purpose.
iii) The claim-petitioner No.1 is entitled an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- towards her share amount and she is entitled to withdraw her share amount along with proportionate costs and interest.
iv) The claim-petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are entitled to Rs.1,50,000/- each towards their share amount from the total compensation amount and they are entitled to withdraw their entire share amount along with proportionate costs and interest.
v) The claim-petitioners are directed to pay the deficit court fee within 15 days from today. Office is directed to prepare the decree after payment court fee.
vi) The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only).
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 12th day of May, 2026.
12 th May, 2026 V ADJ
MVOP No.138 of 2023 Page 22 of 23
sd/-
Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- V Additional District Judge, Khammam
-APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE-
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
Claim Petitioners :
P.W.1 B.Mallikarjun Rao P.W.2 Mothukuri Srikanth
Respondents :
R.W.1D.Jagadisham R.W.2Chandragiri Ramu
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR
Claim Petitioners:
Ex.A-1: Certified copy of F.I.R.
Ex.A-2: Certified copy of charge sheet
Ex.A-3: Certified Copy P.M.E. report
Ex.A-4:Certified copy of Inquest report
Ex.A-5: Certified copy of CDF
Ex.A6Certified copy of MVI Report
Ex.A7Discharge summery issued by Sai Krishna Super Speciality Neuro Hospital, Hyderabad dt:16.12.2021 Ex.A8Final Bill for Rs.1,20,000/- issued by Care hospital, Hyderabad
dt:17.12.2021.
Respondents:
Certified copy of Insurance policy bearing No.61360131190800001596 Ex.B.1:
12 th May, 2026 V ADJ
MVOP No.138 of 2023 Page 23 of 23
valid from 10.05.2019 to 09.05.2024. Notice to the rider of the motor cycle /A1 with postal receipt Ex.B2
Notice to the owner of the motor cycle /A2 with postal receipt. Ex.B3
sd/-
Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- V Additional District Judge, Khammam
12 th May, 2026 V ADJ