Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 16 (TS)

S. Ramulu v. Mala Narsaiah

2026-01-06

B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

body2026
JUDGMENT : B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J. 1. This memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the MV Act’) assailing the award passed by the Special Judge for Trial of Offences under SC/ST (POA) Act – cum – V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak, Sangareddy, in MVOP.No.182 of 2009, dated 28.04.2011. 2.1 Appellant is the respondent and respondents are the claimants before the Tribunal. 2.2 Learned counsel for the respondents – claimants filed memo on 24.11.2025 stating that respondent Nos.2 – Smt.Mala Laxmi @ Errolla Laxmi died on 23.03.2021 leaving behind her husband Sri M.Narsaiah who is the sole legal heir, who is on record as respondent No.1 and there are no other legal heirs. 3. Respondents – claimants have filed petition under Sections 166, 163-A read with Section 140 of MV Act claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for the death of Mala Venkataiah in the motor accident with the tractor bearing NO.AP-23-J-6994 and subsequently by filing a memo confined to Section 166 of MV Act along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. 4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 – claimants are the parents of the deceased Mala Venkataiah. 5. It is stated in the claim petition that appellant – respondent is the owner of the tractor bearing No.AP-23-J-6994. On 03.07.2008 Mala Venkataiah was proceeding to Pillutla from Lingojiguda on tractor bearing No.AP-23-J-6994 to attend work, when it reached near pillutla BT road, the driver of the tractor drove the same in rash and negligent manner with high speed, due to which the Mala Venkataiah fell down from the tractor, tyre of the tractor ran over him and he died on the spot. On the complaint, Police, Shivampet registered a case in Crime No.58 of 2008 against the driver of the tractor. On the date of accident deceased Venkataiah was aged about 18 years, was doing labour work, earning Rs.3,000/- per month and contributing the same for the welfare of the family. Due to untimely death of the deceased Venkataiah, respondents – claimants lost their income source, they were put to sufferance and prayed to grant compensation as prayed for. 6. On the date of accident deceased Venkataiah was aged about 18 years, was doing labour work, earning Rs.3,000/- per month and contributing the same for the welfare of the family. Due to untimely death of the deceased Venkataiah, respondents – claimants lost their income source, they were put to sufferance and prayed to grant compensation as prayed for. 6. The appellant – respondent has filed his counter and denied the manner in which the accident has occurred and also denied that the deceased was not earning Rs.3,000/- per month, the deceased was from Lingojiguda, has no reason to board the tractor and that since the driver of the tractor is not made as party in the claim petition O.P is not maintainable and prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. The learned Tribunal has framed the following issues: i. Whether the deceased Mala Venkataiah died in the motor accident with the tractor bearing No.AP-23J-6994 due to the rash and negligent driving by it’s driver? ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? iii. To what relief? 8. Respondent No.1 – claimant No.1 is examined as PW1, examined PW2 - Mulugu Narsimulu and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. The appellant – respondent is examined as RW1, examined RW2 – K.Suresh and no documents are marked. 9. The learned Tribunal, after analyzing the evidence adduced by the parties has awarded Rs.1,64,400/- towards compensation to the respondents – claimants payable by the appellant – respondent with costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of the deposit of the amount. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant – respondent submits that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that the deceased boarded the tractor in spite of driver asking him not to do so as he was not employed by the appellant – respondent. The learned Tribunal failed to look into the evidence of the appellant – respondent and RW2. Mere filing of a criminal case against the driver does not prove that the deceased was engaged by the driver as a labour. The learned Tribunal failed to look into the evidence of the appellant – respondent and RW2. Mere filing of a criminal case against the driver does not prove that the deceased was engaged by the driver as a labour. The learned Tribunal erred in relying on the evidence of PW2 who was not present at the site of the accident and he did not lodge the FIR, he was not present at the time of scene of offence panchanama and also at the time of inquest over the dead body of the deceased, he is the relative of the deceased and planted witness. The Tribunal has wrongly taken the age of mother of the deceased as 53 years but as per the evidence her age is 55 years and multiplier applied is also incorrect and hence, prayed to allow the appeal. 11. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 - claimant submits that the learned Tribunal has properly appreciated the facts of the case, rightly awarded compensation and no interference is called for. Counsel to substantiate his contentions relied on the decision in the case of Anita Sharma and others Vs. The New India Assurance Company Limited and another1 and prayed to dismiss the same. 12. Heard learned counsel on record and perused the material. 13. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the award passed by the learned Tribunal in MVOP.No.182 of 2009, dated 28.04.2011 suffers from any perversity or illegality, if so, does it require interference of this Court? 14. Appellant – respondent has challenged the accident and the quantum awarded by the learned Tribunal. 15. Standard of proof in motor accident matters is one of preponderance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt (See: Anita Sharma 2021 (1) Andh LD 267 : 2021 AIR Supreme Court 302). 16. Complaint is lodged on 04.07.2008 by M.Balaiah before the Police, Shivampet. Basing on the said complaint police, Shivampet has registered a case in Crime No.58/2008 on 04.07.2008 under Sections 304(A) of IPC against the driver of the tractor and trolley bearing Nos.AP- 23-J-6994 and AP-23-J-6995 [Ex.A1]. Ex.A2 is the C.C of charge sheet; Ex.A3 is the C.C. of scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch map; Ex.A4 is the C.C. of inquest panchanama; Ex.A5 is the C.C of PME report and Ex.A6 is the C.C. of MVI report. 17. Ex.A2 is the C.C of charge sheet; Ex.A3 is the C.C. of scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch map; Ex.A4 is the C.C. of inquest panchanama; Ex.A5 is the C.C of PME report and Ex.A6 is the C.C. of MVI report. 17. The evidence of respondent No.1 – claimant No.1 is the replica of the petition. In his cross examination he stated that Mulugu Narsaiah is looking after the case and on the next date of the accident complaint is lodged. He denied the suggestion that the deceased boarded the tractor on the way and was standing on the link between the tractor and trailer, due to his negligence he fell from the tractor and died and also denied the suggestion that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle. 18.1 PW2 – Mulugu Narsimulu is an eye-witness to the accident, he deposed that the deceased Venkataiah was proceeding on tractor to go to Pillutla, at about 07.00 p.m., when the said tractor reached near Pillutla BT road the driver of the tractor drove the same in rash and negligent manner with high speed, due to which the deceased Venkataiah fell down from the tractor, tyre ran over him, he died on the spot. The driver of the tractor fled away from the scene of offence and he was examined by the police. He further deposed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor. 18.2 In his cross examination he stated that immediately after the accident he went to the house of the deceased and informed the brothers of PW1. Police has recorded his statement and he do not know whether the scene of offence panchanama was conducted on the same night. On the next day of the accident police has once again examined him. PW2 denied the suggestion that he is not an eye-witness in the charge sheet and he did not witness the accident. 19. The evidence of the appellant – respondent is the same with that of his counter. In his cross-examination he stated that on the date of the accident tractor was being used for taking manure and after dumping the manure while it was returning to the village, it met with the accident. 19. The evidence of the appellant – respondent is the same with that of his counter. In his cross-examination he stated that on the date of the accident tractor was being used for taking manure and after dumping the manure while it was returning to the village, it met with the accident. There were four labourers engaged on the tractor for loading the manure and they do not belong to his village. He do not know their names and he do not know whether accident has taken place due to negligent driving of the driver of the tractor. The police has registered the case against the driver. In the panchayath he agreed to pay money for the death of the deceased and he sold the tractor in the month of March 2010. 20.1 RW2 – K.Suresh is an independent witness, his evidence is that appellant – respondent is the owner of the tractor and trailer, which is involved in the accident and the deceased was never employed as a labourer before the appellant – respondent. Female labourers loaded the poultry manure in the trailer and driver took the loaded manure to his field for unloading, for which no man power is required. Panchayath was held in the village in connection with the death of the deceased. Respondent No.1 – claimant No.1 and his castemen demanded the appellant – respondent to pay compensation in view of the death of the son of claimant No.1. The appellant – respondent has pleaded that he is not responsible for the death of the deceased. Deceased boarded the tractor and trailer and stood on the link portion, fell down by loosing the grip. Under compulsion appellant – respondent in order to avoid embrassement agreed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and on the date of panchayat the appellant – respondent paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- as part to meet the last rite expenses. 20.2 In his cross examination he stated that the Sarpanch by name Sailu, Upa Sarpanch Mahesh Goud participated in panchayat and about 100 persons were present there at. A document was prepared in the panchayat and he did not sign on it. He did not see the dead body of Mala Venkataiah which was placed in front of the house of the appellant – respondent. A document was prepared in the panchayat and he did not sign on it. He did not see the dead body of Mala Venkataiah which was placed in front of the house of the appellant – respondent. RW2 denied the suggestion that appellant – respondent did not agree to pay Rs.50,000/- to the respondents – claimants so also he did not pay Rs.10,000/- on the date of panchayat. 21. Ex.A2 – C.C. of charge sheet goes to show that accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and trailer which is admitted by the appellant – respondent in his cross- examination and the documents stares against the driver of the crime vehicle that he has committed the accident. The evidence of respondent No.1 – petitioner No.1 coupled with the evidence of PW2 goes to show that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and trailer. Though PW1 and PW2 were cross – examined by the appellant – respondent, no incriminating material is elicited from their cross examination. 22. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned it is the case of the respondents – claimants that the deceased used to earn Rs.3,000/- per month by doing labour work and was aged about 18 years as on the date of accident. The evidence of respondent No.1 – petitioner No.1 is the same. The learned Tribunal has roughly assessed the income of the deceased as a labourer and fixed an amount of Rs.80/- per day, which is Rs.2,400/- per month and Rs.28,800/- per annum. Since the deceased was unmarried 50% of his income is deducted towards personal expenses and thereby the dependency arrived is at Rs.14,400/-. The learned Tribunal has taken the age of the respondent No.2 – petitioner No.2 as 53 years and applied the multiplier at ‘11’ and arrived at a compensation of Rs.1,58,400/-. Apart from the above the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.3,000/- towards loss of estate and total compensation arrived at Rs.1,64,400/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 23. Apart from the above the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.3,000/- towards loss of estate and total compensation arrived at Rs.1,64,400/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 23. The learned Tribunal taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the parties rightly awarded the amount of Rs.1,64,400/- payable by appellant – respondent with costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit of the amount. 24. The appellant – respondent has not made out any case to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Tribunal. This Court is of the view that the appellant – respondent failed to prove the grounds urged by him and there are no merits in the appeal, the same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 25. MACMA.No.1578 of 2011 is dismissed without costs. Interim orders if any stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous application/s if any shall stand closed.