Telangana High Court
M/S. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Vallakati Aishwarya on 6 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
M.A.C.M.A.No.426 of 2025
06th DAY OF APRIL, 2026
Between:
M/s. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.
...Appellant
AND
Vallakati Aishwarya and two others.
...Respondents
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant
and Sri A.S.Narayana, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Perused the entire record.
2. The M.A.C.M.A. is preferred by the appellant/respondent No.2-
insurance company aggrieved by the award passed by the learned
Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XXIV Additional Chief
Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, (‘Tribunal’) dated 19.08.2024 in
M.V.O.P.No.479 of 2022, wherein a claim petition filed by respondent
Nos.1 and 2 herein seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- under Section
166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (‘M.V.Act’) has been allowed-in-part
awarding a sum of Rs.27,71,320/- payable with interest at 7.5% per annum
with proportionate costs.
RY, J
MACMA_426_2025
3. The background facts are that on 07.12.2019, at about 21.45 hours,
the deceased by name Vallakati Aruna and her son were proceeding on
bike bearing number TS 08 FS 5100 from Rajeevgruhakalpa, Suraram to
Shapur Nagar. When the bike reached Om Janda Suraram, Quthbullapur,
the rider has driven in rash and negligent manner without observing a speed
breaker and passed over it. Due to said rash driving, the pillion rider fell
down on the road, sustained bleeding injuries to the head. She was
immediately shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Somajiguda and from there to
Gandhi Hospital. While undergoing treatment, she died on 13.12.2019 at
about 21:47 hours. A claim petition was filed by the legal heirs of the
deceased seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- and the same was
allowed in part for Rs.27,71,320/- payable with interest at 7.5% per annum.
4. Aggrieved by the same, the insurance company preferred the present
appeal, on the ground that the deceased is none other than mother of the
owner/insured of the crime vehicle and therefore, the deceased cannot be
considered as a third party to the policy. It is pleaded that the risk of pillion
rider is covered under a package policy is not correct as the owner of the
vehicle has not paid any premium to cover the risk of the pillion rider and
the package policy covers the risk of own damage apart from third party
damage. However, to cover the risk of pillion rider, additional premium has
2
RY, J
MACMA_426_2025
to be paid by the owner. It is pleaded that the owner obtained Ex.B-1 policy
and paid an amount of Rs.686/- towards own damage, Rs.1,193/- towards
basic third party cover and Rs.315/- towards personal accident cover for
owner-cum-driver. Except the aforementioned, premium to cover the risk
of pillion rider was not paid. In the circumstances, since the mother of the
owner is not a third party, but was travelling as pillion rider, the insurance
company is not liable to pay compensation.
5. It is pleaded that in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v.
Sadanand Mukhi 1, it is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that owner and
deceased, father and son do not have a third party relationship as
contemplated under Section 165 of the M.V.Act and therefore, the relatives
would not be entitled to compensation from the insurance company.
6. Apart from the fact of liability to cover the risk of the pillion rider,
the appellant also raised the issue of delay of seven days in lodging the FIR
and quantification of the compensation paid, more particularly for
considering the gross total income of Rs.20,158/- per month while
computing the loss of dependency instead of considering net salary.
1
Civil Appeal No.7402 of 2008
3
RY, J
MACMA_426_2025
7. Learned counsel for appellant-insurance company relied upon the
case of Jayavarapu Rajamma v. Jayavarapu Laxminarayana 2, wherein
the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, held that the
kith and kin of the insured for injuries and their legal representatives in the
event of the death in an accident can sustain claims for compensation as
third party claims, provided the relevant policy of the insurance covers
such risks. Mere nomenclature of the policy as comprehensive policy or
otherwise is not the guide, but the specific terms and conditions of the
policy govern the existence and extent of liability of the insurer.
8. Further, reference is made to judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Sadanand Mukhi (supra), wherein it is held
that Section 165 of M.V.Act clearly postulates that the insurer is liable to
indemnify the risk of third party during a motor vehicle accident.
9. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of this Court in Oriental
Insurance Company Limited, Karimnagar v. Patha Gangamma 3 ,
wherein it is held that where the driver is representative of the owner, he
was driving under the owner’s instructions or permission and is thus owner
qua insurance company and not a third party. Where the son of the owner
2
2007 (6) ALD 306 (DB)
3
2020 (5) ALD 167 (TS)
4
RY, J
MACMA_426_2025
was driving the vehicle died in the accident was not a third party and in
such instances the insurer is not liable to pay compensation.
10. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2/claimants referred to the
policy issued in the name of respondent No.3, which is a package policy
covering the risk of owner-cum-driver with payment of Rs.845/- premium
paid. Further, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 relied upon
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National
Insurance Company v. Balakrishnan4, containing the circulars issued by
Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA), about a package
policy or comprehensive policy covering the liability of the occupants of a
private car and the pillion rider on a two wheeler. Further, there is a clarity
given about a comprehensive package policy versus an Act policy which
covers only the risk of third party injured or deceased.
11. In the case of United India Insurance Company Limited v.
Dheeraj Trahan 5, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that in case of a
comprehensive package policy of a two wheeler, the risk of pillion driver
and in case of a comprehensive package policy of a private car, the risk of
occupants is covered.
4
2013 AIR (SC) 473
5
MANU/DE/0588/2026
5
RY, J
MACMA_426_2025
12. In the instant case, the policy issued to respondent No.3 covers the
risk of owner-cum-driver as well as the pillion rider. When the policy is a
package policy, the insurance company cannot claim immunity. Therefore,
there are no merits in the claim that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are not entitled
to claim compensation on account of the fact that the pillion rider being
mother of the driver, is not a fit case for the legal heir to seek
compensation.
13. Coming to the aspect of delay in lodging FIR, the facts of the case
reveal that the accident occurred on 07.12.2019 and the deceased died on
account of the injuries sustained on 13.12.2019. It is probable that the legal
heirs of the deceased were busy catering to the medical needs of the injured
and therefore, could not lodge an FIR before her death. Therefore, this
Court does not see any ground to interfere on account of delay in lodging
the FIR.
14. Lastly, the objection relating to computing of the compensation
awarded, the appellant-insurance company claims illegality in considering
the gross total income of Rs.20,158/- per month and claims that net salary
ought to have been considered. There are a catena of judgments rendered
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to the effect that while computing
the loss of dependency, the gross salary has to be taken into consideration,
6
RY, J
MACMA_426_2025
but not the net salary. Thus, on this count too this Court does not see any
ground to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. In the
circumstances, the M.A.C.M.A. lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed.
15. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed confirming the award
dated 19.08.2024 in M.V.O.P.No.479 of 2022 on the file of the Tribunal.
There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any,
pending shall stand closed.
__________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 06.04.2026
GVR
7
RY, J
MACMA_426_2025
79
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
M.A.C.M.A.No.426 of 2025
W
06th DAY OF APRIL, 2026
GVR
8
[ad_1]
Source link
