The High Court · 2025

2. For rht: sakc o[ conveniencc, the parties hcr<:inafter bc referred as th,:y u cre arr:rved bcfore tl,re lcarned Tribu rzrl.

3. The brief fircts of the case are that the peti io:rer filed a petition undt:r St.ction 16€r of the Motor Vehiclcs Act, lggg claiming cornpensation of Rs.75,OOO/_ for th: dcath of Smt.Nancharzrmrna (hereinafter referred as .the de,:casedJ in a motor vehiclc accidcnt t hat occurred on 14.11.2003. .t is stated by the petitioner that on r 4.11.2oo3, when the deceased rvent to work as agricultureLl labourer on Tractor bearing No.Ap_2ir T_53g7 and when the Tractor reached near Wadiaram Shivar, the driver of the said Tractor drovc thc vel-ricle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed agairl.st Lhc culvcrt, due to which, the Tractor turned turtle and the deceased clied or-r the spot. 2 l.A.No.1of 2009 in /ond MACMA.No.2170 ol 20O9

4. Based on a complaint, Police of Chegunta Police Station registered a case in Crime No.137 of 2OO3 under Sections 337 and 304-A IPC against the crime vehicle.

5. It is stated by the petitioner that the deceased used to earn Rs.1,5O0/- per month bJ, working as a labourer. Due to sudden death of the deceased, petitioner suffered mentally and monetarily and therefore, filed claim petition seeking compensation against the respondents who are the owner and insurer of subject Tractor bcaring No.AP-23-T 5387.

6. Before the Tribunal, Respondent No.1 was set as ex,partc.

7. Respondent No.2/lnsurance Company filed its counter denying the averments madc in the claim petition including, age, occupation and income of the deceased and contended that the dcceased was travelling as an unauthorized passengcr but not as a labourer, as such, the petitioner is not entitled to claim compensation and therefore prayed to dismiss the claim against it.

8. Based on the pleadings made by both the parties, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues for conducting trial: - t. tl. Whether the accident occvrred due to rash and negligent driuing of the driuer of Tractor bearing No.AP 23-T-5387 ontg? Whether the claimant is entitted for compensation? If so, at what quantum? 3 MGP,I t ,\.No ) al2oo9 in /ond htAcM/,_No 2170 oJ 2009 iii. To uhat rel[e]?

9. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner himself was t:xamined as PW 1 and gc,t marked trxs.A 1 to 46 on his behalf. On behalf of respondent/ Insurancc Compar-ry, no oral or docume ntary evidence was adduct:d, however, Ex.B1-Copy of Insuranr:e policy was marked with consen[. i0. Since the petitioner failcd to show any re liabl,: documentary proof shorving thal the dcccased and Mallaiah are wife and husband anrl the petitioner is their son, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petitir>n. Aggrieved by the said hnding, the petitioner preferred the: present Appeal sceking granI of compet rsa tiol't.

11. Heard arguments submitted by Sri L.PraLhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the Appell:rnt and Sri V.Atchr-rta Ram, IearI-red Standing Counsel lor Respondcnt No.2/lnsurance C(,mpany.

12. The main contcntion of the learned counsel f,rr appellant is that the Tritrunal erroneously dismissed the claim tel ition in the absence of any rebuttal evidence and without th:re being any cogent evidence that the deceased u,as a gratuitous Da:lsenger and also merely relying upon the dcscription with regard to the name of the husband.

13. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel fo- Respondent No.2/Insurance Company contended that the Triburral hzrd rightly 4 MGP,) t.a.No.1ol 2009 in /ond MACMA-No 2170 ol 2009 dismissed the claim petition as the petitioner failed to produce necessary documentary proof evidencing that he is the son o[ the deceased and Mallaiah was his father l4 Now the points that emerges for determination are, (1) Whether the Judgment of the learned Tial Court requires interference of this Court? (it) Whether the appetlant is entitLed for compen-sation? POINTS:- 15. As seen from the record, thcre is no dispute about thc death of the deceased. The only points that have to be dealt with in the present Appeal are with regard to description of the name of the husband of the deceased and to establish whether the deceased travelled as a gratuitous passenger or as a Labour on the subject crime Tractor.

16. The Insurance Company is mainly disputing thal the deceased and Mallaiah are wife and husband and that the petitioner is their son. The petitioner did not file any document before the Tribunal to establish his relationship with the deceased. However, during pendency of the Appeal, the appellant hled I.A.No. 1 of 2OO9 under Order XLI Rule 27 of tLre C.P.C. requesting the Court to receive 2 documents vrz., (ll Identity card issued by Election Authority showing the name of the deceased and (ii) 5 MGP,J l.A No.1oJ 2009 in /ond MACMA-No-2170 ol 2O09 Pension carrl issued by Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Chegunta, Medak District as additional evic ence. 'l'he respondent/ )nsurance Company failed to file an1' < ounter to the above said pctition.

17. A perusal o[ the documcnts filcd along wilh the above s;rid petition discLoses that Mallaiah is thc husband of the deceased Peddalachu Ilanchari, but there is no documenl 5l1ru,ing that the appellant is the son of deceased-Nanchari. F ur he rmore, the surname of thc petitioner as pcr trx.A 1-FIR s shown as "Chigulapalli'. The additronal document i.c., ldentiLv card ol the deceased issued by Mandal Parishad Developrnent Ofhcer, Chegunta, fited by the petitioner discloses the surnzrme of the deceased as "Harijana". The additional document i.e., Voter card of the deceased discloses her surnamc as "Pcddalachu". In all the documents relied upon by the petitioner disclose:; his father's name as Mallaiah and there is no surname added to his father's

18. ln these circumstances, any amount of ambil3uity is being created with regard to the relationship between the deceased and the petitioner and between Mallaiah and deceased. Moreover, the petitioner has not filed any aflidavit as to why ther;e documents could not be produced before the learned Tribunal v'hichis one of the cardinal principles for entertaining a petition filec under Order 6 MGP, lA-No.lol2009in /ond MACMA.NO.tll0 ol 2009 XLI Rule 27 of C.P.C. Thus, viewed from any angle, the present petition, to receive additional documents, deserves to be dismissed'

19. Now coming to the question of deceased being a gratuitous passenger or not, learned counsel for the appeliant contended that the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition merely on surmises and conjectures without there being any cogent evidence to the effect that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger.

20. In the complaint dated 15.11.2003 given by the petitioner, it is stated that whcn the deccased was returning to her home after attending coolie work, she boarded Tractor bearing No.AP-23T- 5387 coming from the back side and whe n the said Tractor reached Wadiaram, the driver of the said Tractor drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the culvert, due to which the Tractor turned turtlc zrnd the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Whereas, in the petition filed for claiming compensation, it is stated that the deceased worked as a Labour on subjec[ Tractor. Therefore, it can be seen that there is ambiguity regarding travelling of the deceased on the subject Tractor either as passenger or as a labour. Even if the deceased is considered to be working as Labour on the subject Tractor, a perusal of Ex.Bl-Copy of Insurance Poiicy clearly discloses that the policy does not cover the risk of employees as no additional premium was paid to cover their risk. If at all, the : \ rYt(rr,l t A No-1 ol 2ot)9 in /ond ,';t MA \o.2170 ol 2OO9 petitioner is eligiblc for any cornpcnsation, he woulC havc filecl a petition by invoking the provisions under Workmen's Compensation Act where the Labours/workers worling under the Tractor would come under third party. Further, tL e contents in Exs.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-lnquest report and Ex.A3-Charge sheet goes to show that the deceased travelled on the Tractor as a pzlss(rnger but nol as a labourcr. Therefore, in the absence ('[ cogent and convincing tnatcrial available on rccord, this Court is of the considered opinion that the deceased travelled as r gratuitous passenger and nol as a Labourer on the subject Tractor lor which thc appellan', is not cntitled for any compensation' In view of thc foregoing discussion, it can be hcld that the 21. Tribunal ha<l rightll' dismissed the claim petition lhis Court do not find an]'i rezlson to inlerfere vgith the finding r[ thc learned Tribunal r,r,h.ich is in proper perspective. Hence, thtl Appeal is devoid of merits etnd substance and is liablc to be dismissed

22. In th,: rcsult, i.A.No.I of 2OO9 along r,r' th Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ZJ Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall startd closed //TRUE COPY// Sd/. T, JAYASREE I)EPUTY REGISTRAR \ sEcTtoN oFFlcER To,

1. The MACT-Cum-lll Addl. District & Sessions Judge (FTrl), Medak ? ne cc o SRI L PRABHAKAR REDDYAdvoca te IOF UC - --- €

3. One CC to SRl 8477N ATCHUTA RAM Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies (t- I HIGH COURT \ \ DATED:0410412025 0 t JUDGMENT MACMA.No.2170 of 2009 1,1? N6 Ir L.l ,J \.\ ,,::;:l* i-! .i; { '..'.| ..r.' DISMTSSING THE APPEAL Io 0' lJ j I ! i I t i ! I ': : i ! i t I I I I I 1 i I i I HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI l.A.No. 1 OF 2009 IN / AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2170 OF 2009 Between: CHEVULAPALLI BHUDAIAH @ PEDDA LACHU BHUDAIAH, S/o. Mallaiah, Occ: Agriculture, Aged about 50 yrs., R/o. wadiaram, at Present residing at narsingi Village, Chegunta mandal, Dist : Medak. AND ...APPELLANT/ PETITIONER

3. R. VITTAL S/o. Papaiah, Major, Owner of Tractor No. AP-23-T-5387 R/o. Wadiaram Village, Chegunta Mandal, Medak District.

4. The Branch manager, United lndia lnsurance Company Lrmited Branch Sanga Reddy, D.No.5-2-1717, Main Road, new Bus Stand, Sanga Reddy, ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Sectron 173 of tM.V. Act, aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dt. 19.01.2007 in M.V.O.P.No. 144 of 2005, on the file of the MACT-Cum-lll Addl. District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Medak. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate for the appellant and of Sri V. Achutaram, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. This court doth Order and Decree as follows 'l . That this Court while dismissing the appeal along with l A. No. 1 of 2009 confirmed all the averments made by the lower court.

2. That there shall be no order as to costs To, Sd/- T. JAYASREE I)EPqTY REGTSTRAR \ . u!,t,Vi c,, t ."f J i "rr-

1. The MACT-Cum-lll Addl. Distnct & Sessions Judge (FTt)) lVledak 2. Two CD Copies. (e HIGH COURT DATED:0410412025 DECREE MACMA.No.2170 of 2009 DISMISSINGTHE APPEAL tr( )'3 b

2.t