Case Summary: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Karu Nukalamma & Ors. (2025) | Motor Vehicle Accident Claim

The case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Karu Nukalamma & Others presents a nuanced examination of compensation claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, arising from a tragic road accident that led to the death of a municipal worker.

Case Title: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Karu Nukalamma & Others

Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati

Citation: Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 3158/2014

Bench: Hon’ble Dr. Justice V.R.K. Krupa Sagar

Date of Judgment: 25 March 2025

Facts of the Case

The deceased, Sri Tupakula Raju @ Stalin, was a 45-year-old public health worker with the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation earning a monthly salary of ₹6,728/-. On 17.10.2009, while sleeping in front of his residence in Winchipet, Vijayawada, he was fatally injured when a milk van (Reg. No. AP-16-T-9663) ran over his chest due to the alleged negligence of its driver. He succumbed to injuries on 22.10.2009. A criminal case (Crime No. 354/2009) was registered against the driver.

A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed by his mother, married daughter (Karu Nukalamma), and showing the second wife (Tupakula Siva Ganga Bhavani) as respondent no. 3. They claimed ₹4,00,000/- as compensation from the vehicle owner and the insurer.

During the pendency of the claim, the deceased’s mother (second petitioner) passed away. The Insurance Company, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., contested the claim, denying liability because:

• The driver had no valid licence.
• The compensation sought was excessive.
• The petitioners were not dependents.

Issues Before the Tribunal

• Was the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the van driver?
• Were the petitioners entitled to compensation? If so, what amount and from whom?
• What relief should be granted?

Findings:

• The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the milk van.
• The deceased earned ₹6,728/- per month (based on Ex.A.3 and RW.2’s evidence).
• After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses and applying the Sarla Verma case multiplier of 14, the total compensation under loss of dependency was calculated as ₹7,53,536/-.
• However, as the petition only claimed ₹3,70,000/- towards this head, compensation was restricted accordingly.
• Other heads: ₹5,000/- (consortium) and ₹2,000/- (funeral expenses), totalling ₹3,77,000/-.
• No proof that the driver lacked a valid licence—onus not discharged by the insurance company.

Award by Tribunal:

The Tribunal awarded ₹3,77,000/- with 7.5% interest, directing the owner and insurer to pay jointly and severally, equally shared between Karu Nukalamma and Smt. Tupakula Siva Ganga Bhavani.

Appeals Before the High Court

1. MACMA No. 3158/2014:

• Filed by United India Insurance Co. Ltd., challenging the Tribunal’s award on the grounds that:
• The married daughter was not dependent.
• The second wife was estranged and not entitled to compensation.
• The driver did not have a valid licence, amounting to a policy breach.
• Excess compensation was awarded.

2. MACMA No. 205/2025:

• Filed by Tupakula Siva Ganga Bhavani (second wife), seeking enhancement of the awarded compensation, contending that:
• The Tribunal wrongly limited the compensation to what was claimed rather than what was just.
• No compensation was awarded under several conventional heads, such as loss of estate, adequate funeral expenses, and consortium.

Issues for Determination by the High Court

• Is a married daughter entitled to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act?
• Is a second wife entitled to compensation in the light of dependency?
• Was there a fundamental breach of the insurance policy due to a lack of a valid driving licence?
• Whether the impugned award require modification?

High Court Observations and Findings

1. Entitlement of a Married Daughter

Under Section 166(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, any legal representative of a deceased victim can claim compensation. The term "legal representative" is interpreted in line with Section 2(11) CPC. A married daughter is a legal heir and can claim compensation. Dependency is a question of fact. A married daughter can still be dependent based on evidence.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Birender (2020) 11 SCC 356 – Legal representatives who suffer due to the death are entitled, and the extent of dependency is to be factually examined.

2. Entitlement of Second Wife

• Tupakula Siva Ganga Bhavani was the second wife but received family pension.
• No evidence existed to challenge the legality of her marriage.
• Therefore, she qualifies as a legal representative.
• Her estrangement and independent source of support (pension) limit her dependency, but do not negate her entitlement.

Shaik Kalesha v. B. Sreenivasa Rao (2023) – Legal heirs including second wives or married children can claim compensation, subject to dependency being established.

3. Driver’s Licence and Policy Breach

• The insurance company alleged a lack of a valid licence but failed to prove it.
• As per the settled law, the burden lies on the insurer to prove such breach.
• The Tribunal rightly held that no breach of policy was proved.

4. Need for Enhancement of Compensation

Under Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680, a total of ₹70,000/- should be awarded under conventional heads:

• ₹15,000/- for loss of estate
• ₹40,000/- for loss of consortium
• ₹15,000/- for funeral expenses
• Tribunal only awarded ₹7,000/-, leading to deficiency of ₹63,000/-.
• The High Court held that, although the Tribunal erred in capping the compensation based on the claimed amount, no increase was warranted under loss of dependency due to the limited dependency of the second wife.

Final Judgment

MACMA No. 3158/2014 (filed by Insurance Company): Dismissed

• All contentions raised were found without merit.

MACMA No. 205/2025 (filed by Second Wife): Allowed in Part

• Compensation enhanced from ₹3,77,000/- to ₹4,40,000/- (by ₹63,000/-)
• 7.5% interest p.a. from the date of petition till realization
• Insurance company directed to pay jointly and severally with vehicle owner
• Enhancement to be equally shared by Karu Nukalamma and Tupakula Siva Ganga Bhavani

Conclusion

This judgment reinforces several significant legal principles in motor accident compensation law:

• The inclusive scope of "legal representative" allows both married daughters and second wives to claim compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
• Dependency is not presumed and must be determined based on evidence.
• Just compensation need not be restricted by what is claimed in pleadings.
• Insurance companies bear the burden of proving a breach of policy due to license violations.
• The judgment also reflects judicial sensitivity in addressing familial complexities, such as estrangement, remarriage, or multiple wives, while upholding the rightful claims of legal heirs within the framework of equity and precedent.

Click Here to Read the Official Judgment