Telangana High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Thummala Adithya Sai Chowdary on 3 July, 2026
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
MACMA NOs.27 & 48 OF 2025
AND
CROSS OBJECTION NO.17 OF 2026 IN MACMA NO.27 OF 2025
DATE: 03.07.2026
BETWEEN:
MACMA NO.27 OF 2025 AND BATCH
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Represented by its Divisional Manager.
...Appellant
AND
Thummala Adithya Sai Chowdary,
S/o. Late Thummala and Three Others.
...Respondents
Mr. A. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance
Company.
Mr. Jagathpal Reddy Kasi Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents/claimants.
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)
1. MACMA Nos.27 and 48 of 2025 are filed by the Insurance
Company challenging the orders dated 16.05.2024 in MVOP Nos.221 of
2020 and 222 of 2020, respectively, passed by the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) at Khammam (‘Tribunal’). The
Claimants filed Cross Objection No.17 of 2026 in MACMA No.27 of 2025
2
seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVOP
No.221 of 2020.
2. The Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeals (MACMAs), as well
as the connected Cross Objection, are being dealt with and disposed of
by this Common Judgment. The parties are common to both the Motor
Vehicle Original Petitions (MVOPs) filed before the Tribunal. The
impugned orders arise out of the same accident dated 23.07.2019
involving the same parties.
3. The claim petitions were filed by the two sons and the maternal
grandparents of the deceased in MVOP No.221 of 2020, and by the two
sons of the deceased in MVOP No.222 of 2020, represented by the
maternal grandfather as guardian. The Tribunal partly allowed the claim
petitions by awarding compensation of Rs.1,12,78,000/- along with
interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till realization
and proportionate costs in MVOP No.221 of 2020. Similarly, MVOP
No.222 of 2020 was allowed with an Award of Rs.5,19,000/- along with
interest at 7.5% per annum spinning from the date of petition till
realization and proportionate costs. The Insurance Company was
directed to pay the compensation to the claim petitioners and deposit the
same to the credit of the above OP’s within thirty days from the date of
the impugned orders. The Tribunal also ordered apportionment of the
compensation among the claim petitioners.
3
4. The Insurance Company assails the impugned orders primarily on
the ground that the claim petitioners were family members/kith and kin
of the insured/deceased father of the claimants and consequently are not
entitled to compensation. Learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/Insurance Company further argues that the terms and
conditions of the Insurance Policy only covers third-party risks and does
not cover the death of the insured or his legal heirs. Hence, according to
counsel, the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation to the claim
petitioners, who were family members of the deceased/insured.
5. Counsel submits that the Tribunal ought to have restricted the
compensation to Rs.2,00,000/- for the accidental death of each occupant
as per the premium paid. Since the Insurance Company has already
discharged its liability by paying compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- under
personal accident and death of the owner-cum-insured and
Rs.2,00,000/- each for the death of paternal grandmother and the death
of the mother of the claim petitioners. Hence, according to counsel, the
Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation beyond what
has already been disbursed to the claim petitioners. It is further
submitted that the amount awarded is contrary to the terms of the
contract, namely the Insurance Policy executed between the appellant
and the deceased insured/owner of the vehicle.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claim petitioners
submits that the deceased/owner of the vehicle had a comprehensive
package policy with the appellant/Insurance Company, which also
4
covers the occupants of the vehicle. According to counsel, there is no
requirement for the Tribunal to enquire whether the Insurance Company
is liable to compensate the occupants of a private vehicle in view of the
directions issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development
Authority of India (IRDAI). Counsel further submits that both the
owner/driver of the vehicle (deceased) and his wife were covered under
the Policy, which would consequently fasten liability on the Insurance
Company to pay compensation for their deaths.
7. The claim petitioners have also filed a Cross Objection (No.17) in
MACMA No.27 of 2025 challenging the amount of compensation awarded
by the Tribunal in MVOP No.221 of 2020, namely Rs.1,12,78,000/- along
with interest at 7.5% per annum. The ground raised in the Cross
Objection is that the Tribunal failed to consider that the deceased (wife of
the owner of the vehicle) was employed in a secured job of Quality
Controller at Divis Private Limited Company with a salary of Rs.55,000/-
per month. According to counsel, the petitioners are entitled to an
enhanced compensation under the heads of parental consortium and
future income.
8. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the parties and have also perused the relevant record received
from the Trial Court/Claims Tribunal.
9. The claim petitions were filed against the Insurance Company
under section 166 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘the 1988 Act’)
5
seeking compensation for the accidental deaths of the deceased parents
of the claimant Nos.1 and 2. The claim petitioners were the minor sons
of the deceased at the time of filing the claim petitions. The maternal
grandparents were claimant Nos.3 and 4 in the first claim petition
(MVOP No.221 of 2020). The claim petitioners were represented by their
maternal grandfather in the second claim petition (MVOP No.222 of
2020) in the capacity of a guardian.
10. The father of the claim petitioners was the driver and owner of the
vehicle. The motor vehicle accident occurred on 23.07.2019 at about
07:00 A.M., when the owner of the vehicle (one of the deceased) was
driving the vehicle from Hyderabad to Revuru Village. The wife of the
owner of the vehicle (also deceased), the paternal grandmother of the
claimants and their two sons (claimant Nos.1 and 2) were travelling in
the car at the time of the accident. The car hit a culvert after the driver
(deceased husband) lost control of the vehicle. Both the deceased
sustained severe injuries as a result of the accident and were shifted to
Kodad CHC – Community Health Centre Hospital. The mother of the
claim petitioners succumbed to her injuries on 24.07.2019. The
husband of the deceased later died while undergoing treatment at Kodad
CHC Hospital. The paternal grandmother of the claim petitioners also
succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident.
11. The claim petitioners and the Insurance Company filed their
respective pleadings before the Tribunal. The Insurance Company filed
an additional counter in MVOP No.221 of 2020 stating that it had no
6
further liability beyond the amounts already paid to the claim
petitioners/sons, namely Rs.2,00,000/- for the death of their mother and
Rs.2,00,000/- for the death of their paternal grandmother. The
Insurance Company further contended that the occupants of the vehicle
were not third parties and that the claim petition was, hence, not
maintainable.
12. The Tribunal considered the rival contentions and proceeded to
award compensation to the claim petitioners on the basis of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors v. Delhi Transport
Corp. & Anr. 1 in considering her salary and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Pranay Sethi 2 in awarding amounts under conventional heads. The
Tribunal also found that the Insurance Policy, being a comprehensive
Policy, was in force on the date of the accident and relied on a circular
issued by the IRDAI on 16.11.2019 wherein the insurer’s liability
towards occupants and pillion rider of the standard Motor Package Policy
has been clarified and general insurers were advised to comply with the
guidelines in respect of such occupants carried in a private car and
pillion riders on two-wheelers. The Tribunal found that the Insurance
Company was bound to compensate all the occupants in the car
irrespective of the terms and conditions contained in the Insurance
Policy. Compensation of Rs.1,12,78,000/- was awarded to the
claimants, namely the two sons of the deceased as well as the maternal
grandparents, along with interest at 7.5% per annum. The claimants
1
AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 3104
2
AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT 5157
7
were also awarded and Rs.5,19,000/- along with interest at 7.5% per
annum along with proportionate costs.
13. The issue for adjudication in the present Appeals and the Cross
Objection is whether the appellant Insurance Company can be fastened
with any liability on the ground that the claim petitioners (the two sons
of the deceased) were family members/kith and kin of the deceased.
This issue was dealt with by a Division Bench of the erstwhile
Andhra Pradesh High Court at Hyderabad in Jayavarapu Rajamma And
Ors. v. Jayavarapu Laxminarayana 3. The High Court held that the heirs
and dependants of the owner of the vehicle can maintain a claim only if
the Policy covers the risk of injury or death to the owner personally and
for which premium has been paid. The Court further held that section
147 of the Act does not require an Insurance Company to assume the
risk of death of, or bodily injury to, the owner of the vehicle and relied on
Dhanraj v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. 4 in reaching to such
conclusion. The Court further observed that the mere nomenclature of
the Policy being comprehensive Policy is not the guiding factor since the
specific terms and conditions of the Policy would govern the existence
and extent of the liability of the insurer.
14. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company
placed a clearer and legible copy of the Insurance Policy which was
executed between the claimants and the appellants. Counsel informed
the Court that a Policy with similar terms was being relied on since the
3
2007(6)ALD306
4
2004 (8) SCC 553
8
original policy was cancelled pursuant to the Insurance Company paying
the admissible dues to the claimants.
15. We have gone through the Insurance Policy which was placed for
our perusal. The terms are identical to those contained in the Policy
executed between the parties to the Appeal. The relevant terms reflect
the following:
(i) The Insurance Policy was for a ‘private car’ with the
vehicle number mentioned therein.
(ii) The Insurance Policy mentions – ‘personal accident covers
for Owner-Driver CSI: Rs.20,00,000/-‘ and clearly states
that the policy subject to terms and conditions attached
thereto in 16, 22, and 28.
(iii) The Policy covers basic premium to vehicle and
accessories, and Basic – TP (third party)
(iv) Compulsory PA for owner Driver – Rs.100/-, PA for
unnamed persons (5 persons), the sum insured per
occupant – Rs.20,00,000/-.
16. Counsel for the appellant explains that a total number of five
unnamed persons were insured for Rs.20,00,000/-. The Insurance
Company paid Rs.15,00,000/- for the deceased father of the claimant
(owner), Rs.2,00,000/- for the deceased mother of the claimant,
Rs.2,00,000/- for the deceased grandmother of the claimant and
Rs.2,00,000/- for car. Counsel submits that as per the Policy, the
9
appellant is not liable for payment of any further amounts to the
claimant.
17. We find the submission to be in accordance with the contractual
obligation of the appellant’s Insurance Policy since the Insurance Policy
does not contain any term which would cover injury or death of the
family members of owner of the vehicle. The term “own damage” was
explained in Jayavarapu Rajamma (supra) as damage to the vehicle and
not for injury to the person from the owner. As stated above,
Jayavarapu Rajamma (supra) referred to Oriental Insurance Company
Limited v. Sunita Rathi 5 to reiterate that owner of a car can only make a
claim, provided a personal accident insurance has been taken out.
18. The Division Bench also relied on New India Assurance Company
Limited v. Meera Bai and Ors. 6, following Dhanraj (supra), and Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd v.Jhuma Saha And Ors. 7, to hold that the question of
indemnification by the insurer does not arise if the insured cannot be
held liable under the provisions of the Act.
19. The Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Sadanand
Mukhi & Ors. 8 dealt with a similar factual situation where the first
respondent before the Supreme Court was the owner of a motorcycle
which was insured with the appellant/Insurance Company. The son of
the insured, while driving the motorcycle, met with an accident and died.
5
1998 ACJ 121
6
(2007) 2 ACJ 821
7
(2007) 2 ACJ 818
8
2009 (2) SCC 417
10
The respondents therein filed a claim petition. The appellant/Insurance
Company contended that the claimants could not seek compensation in
view of the relationship between the deceased and the owner of the
motorcycle, namely, that of son and father. The Supreme Court placed
reliance on section 147(1)(b) of the Act and held that the said provision
covers only third party risk and that the risk of death of, or bodily injury
to the owner of the vehicle would not be covered in the facts of that case
since no additional premium had been paid in respect thereof.
20. Sadanand Mukhi (supra) was considered by the Supreme Court in
Wakia Afrin (Minor) v. M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 9 wherein the
Supreme Court reiterated the principle that statutory liability would not
be applicable in the case of the owner/insured since the coverage was
confined to third-party risks under section 147 read with section 149 of
the Act. The Court relied on Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) to hold
that the liability of the Insurance Company is to the extent of
indemnification of the insured against the claims of an injured person, a
third person, or in respect of damage to property. Thus, the question of
the insurer being liable to indemnify the insured would not arise if the
insured cannot be fastened with any liability. The Supreme Court
further relied on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Davinder Singh 10,
which, inter alia, held that an Insurance Company may refuse to
compensate the owner of the vehicle towards his own loss.
9
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1591
10
(2007) 8 SCC 698
11
21. In Wakia Afrin (supra), the Supreme Court noted the divergence of
judicial views across precedents but agreed with the decision of the
Three-Judge Bench in Minu B. Mehta v. Balkrishna Ramchandra
Nayan 11, which held that under section 166, the claimants have to prove
the negligence of the driver to sustain a claim for compensation arising
from death or injury in a motor vehicle accident and that the statutory
liability arises only with respect to third parties or those specified under
22. In this connection, it may also be relevant to refer to the judgment
of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in G. Nagarathna v. G.
Manjunatha 12, where the wife, son and parents of the deceased filed a
claim petition under section 166 of the Act seeking compensation for the
death of the deceased in a road accident. The High Court considered the
rash and negligent driving of the deceased and held that the legal-heirs
of the deceased cannot claim any compensation for the death since the
deceased himself was the tortfeasor and the Insurance Company cannot
be compelled to indemnify liability arising from the wrong. The Supreme
Court on 02.07.2025 dismissed a Special Leave Petition from the
Karnataka High Court’s order on 02.07.2025.
23. Considering the ratio laid down in the above decisions, particularly
with respect to section 147 of the Act being restricted only to third-party
claims, we are constrained to agree with the contentions advanced on
behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company.
11
1977 2 SCC 441
12
2024 Supreme(Kar) 1260
12
24. Chapter XI of the 1988 Act specifically relates to ‘Insurance of
Motor Vehicles against Third Party Risks’. A conjoint reading of sections
147(1) and 165(1) of the Act makes it clear that the claims contemplated
under these provisions relate to the insurer’s liability for death, bodily
injury or damage to any property of a third party caused by an accident
arising from the use of a motor vehicle in a public place. Section 147(2)
has an overriding effect over other statutory provisions for the purpose of
third-party insurance relating to death or grievous injury to a person.
25. Section 145(i) defines ‘third party’ as inclusive of the Government,
the driver and any other co-worker on a transport vehicle. Section 145(g)
is more in the nature of a broad definition as opposed to specifically
naming persons who would qualify as third parties for the purpose of
motor accident claims. Section 146 also deals with the ‘necessity for
insurance against third-party risk’. Section 147 incorporates the
‘requirements of policies and limits of liability’ to the same effect.
26. Section 165(1) provides for the constitution of Motor Accident
Claims Tribunals for the notified jurisdictional area for adjudication of
claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or
bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or
damage to any property of a third party.
27. The scope of sections 147(1) and 165(1) becomes relevant when
considered in the context of the Insurance Policy entered into between
the deceased/insured and the Insurance Company, particularly where
13
the claim is made by the injured owner of the vehicle or by the heirs of
the deceased owner. In such cases, the Insurance Policy assumes
paramount importance in determining whether the Policy covers the
liability incurred by the insured in respect of death or bodily injury to a
third person carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third
person arising out of the use of the vehicle, or whether the Policy also
covers the risk of injury to the owner himself/herself – and their legal
heirs.
28. The Tribunal must also ascertain whether a case of personal
accident insurance was executed in the facts of the case: Dhanraj (supra)
and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v. Sunita Rathi & Ors. 13. In Sunita Rathi
(supra), the Supreme Court made a distinction between the owner who
was driving the vehicle himself and was not covered under the Policy and
a driver of the vehicle who was covered by the Policy: New India
Assurance Company Limited v. Meera Bai (supra). Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Jhuma Saha (supra) reiterated that the insurer is not liable to
indemnify the insured in the case of death of the owner of the vehicle
where no third party was involved.
29. In the present case, deceased owner’s wife and owner’s mother
were not third parties but family members/kith and kin of the owner of
the vehicle. In Jaayavarupu Rajamma (supra), the Andhra Pradesh High
Court held that where the insurer/owner of the vehicle has no liability to
third party, the Insurance Company will also shall not have liability to
13
(1998) 1 ACJ 121
14
the third parties. In Dhanraj (supra), the Supreme Court relied on section
147 of the 1988 Act and observed that an Insurance Policy covers the
liability incurred by the insurer in respect of death of, or bodily injury to
any person carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third
party caused by or arising out of the use of vehicle and that section 147
of the Act does not require an insurance company to assume risk for
death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle.
30. The conclusion which is evident from the above decisions is that
the heirs/dependants of the owner of a vehicle, in the event of the
owner’s death, can only make a claim if the Policy covers the risk of
injury or death to the owner personally and for which the premium has
been paid. Mere nomenclature of the Policy as a ‘Comprehensive Policy’,
as argued by the claimants in the present case, is not the determinant
factor. A Policy of Insurance is essentially a contract between the insurer
and the insured and hence the specific terms of the Policy would govern
the liability of the insurer. In essence, the relevant Insurance Policy
must cover the risk of death of the owner of the vehicle/insured, thereby
enabling the kith and kin of the insured to sustain a claim for
compensation under the terms and conditions of the Policy. As stated in
the paragraphs above, the Insurance Policy executed between the
appellant insurer and the father of the claimants did not contain any
clause for coverage of death or injury to the family members of the
insured.
15
31. In the case at hand, the Trial Court failed to consider the terms
and conditions of the Insurance Policy marked as Ex.B1 and proceeded
on the assumption that the Policy covered the death of the
insured/owner of the vehicle without ascertaining whether the Policy
indeed covered such a contingency. The Trial Court also failed to
consider the scope and purport of section 147(1) of the Act which
excludes death of, or injury to, the owner of the vehicle/insured and is
confined to third-party risks.
32. The Circular issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development
Authority dated 16.11.2009 with reference to the liability of Insurance
Companies in respect of occupant of a private car and pillion rider in a
two-wheeler under standard motor package policy, relied on by counsel
appearing for the respondent/claimants is not applicable or relevant to
the present appeal. The captioned heading of the Circular states that the
Circular was framed for ‘two-wheelers’. Moreover, section II of the
Circular mentions ‘Liability of Third Parties’. The respondents contend
that they are third parties and not ‘kith and kin’. However, this is
admittedly erroneous since the claimants are family members of the
insured and would not come within the umbrella of ‘Third Parties’.
Hence, the Circular does not assist the case of the respondents/claimants.
33. Thus we accept the argument advanced on behalf of the
appellant/Insurance Company that it has discharged its duty and
liability by payment of compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of
16
the owner-cum-insured, Rs.2,00,000/- for the death of the deceased wife
of the insured and Rs.2,00,000/- for the death of the mother of the
insured and that it cannot be fastened with any further liability. The
impugned orders are hence contrary to law as well as the judicial
34. MACMA NOs.27 and 48 of 2025 are thus allowed and disposed of
by setting aside the impugned orders dated 16.05.2024. Consequently,
Cross Objection No.17 of 2026 in MACMA No.27 of 2025 is dismissed.
All connected applications are closed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand
vacated.
________________________________________
JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
___________________________________
JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
DATE: 03.07.2026
NDS
