Chevulapalli Bhudaiah , Pedda Lachu ... vs R. Vittal And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 2743 Tel

Telangana High Court

Chevulapalli Bhudaiah , Pedda Lachu ... vs R. Vittal And Another on 4 March, 2025

            HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

        I.A.No.1 of 2009 (M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.3391 of 2009)
                             IN/AND
                    M.A.C.M.A.No.2170 of 2009

COMMON JUDGMENT:

1. Aggrieved by the dismissal order passed by the learned Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal cum- III Additional District & Sessions

Judge (FTC), Medak, in M.V.O.P.No.144 of 2005, dated

19.01.2007, the petitioner in the said M.V.O.P. preferred the

present Appeal seeking to allow the Appeal by awarding

compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be

referred as they were arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a

petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

claiming compensation of Rs.75,000/- for the death of

Smt.Nancharamma (hereinafter referred as 'the deceased') in a

motor vehicle accident that occurred on 14.11.2003. It is stated by

the petitioner that on 14.11.2003, when the deceased went to work

as agricultural labourer on Tractor bearing No.AP-23-T-5387 and

when the Tractor reached near Wadiaram Shivar, the driver of the

said Tractor drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and

dashed against the culvert, due to which, the Tractor turned turtle

and the deceased died on the spot.

MGP,J I.A.No.1 of 2009 in /and

4. Based on a complaint, Police of Chegunta Police Station

registered a case in Crime No.137 of 2003 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.1,500/- per month by 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

bearing No.AP-23-T-5387.

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

7. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed its counter

denying the averments made in the claim petition including, age,

occupation and income of the deceased and contended that the

deceased was travelling as an unauthorized passenger 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:-

i. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tractor bearing No.AP-23-T-5387 only? ii. Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation? If so, at what quantum?

MGP,J I.A.No.1 of 2009 in /and

iii. To what relief?

9. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner himself was examined as

PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6 on his behalf. On behalf of

respondent/Insurance Company, no oral or documentary evidence

was adduced, however, Ex.B1-Copy of Insurance policy was

marked with consent.

10. Since the petitioner failed to show any reliable documentary

proof showing that the deceased and Mallaiah are wife and

husband and the petitioner is their son, the Tribunal dismissed the

claim petition. Aggrieved by the said finding, the petitioner

preferred the present Appeal seeking grant of compensation.

11. Heard arguments submitted by Sri L.Prabhakar Reddy,

learned counsel for the Appellant and Sri V.Atchuta Ram, learned

Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2/Insurance Company.

12. The main contention of the learned counsel for appellant is

that the Tribunal erroneously dismissed the claim petition in the

absence of any rebuttal evidence and without there being any

cogent evidence that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and

also merely relying upon the description with regard to the name of

the husband.

13. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent

No.2/Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal had rightly

MGP,J I.A.No.1 of 2009 in /and

dismissed the claim petition as the petitioner failed to produce

necessary documentary proof evidencing that he is the son of the

deceased and Mallaiah was his father.

14. Now the points that emerges for determination are,

(i) Whether the Judgment of the learned Trial Court requires interference of this Court?

(ii) Whether the appellant is entitled for compensation?

POINTS:-

15. As seen from the record, there is no dispute about the 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 that 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 filed

I.A.No.1 of 2009 under Order XLI Rule 27 of the C.P.C. requesting

the Court to receive 2 documents viz., (i) Identity card issued by

Election Authority showing the name of the deceased and (ii)

MGP,J I.A.No.1 of 2009 in /and

Pension card issued by Mandal Parishad Development Officer,

Chegunta, Medak District as additional evidence. The

respondent/Insurance Company failed to file any counter to the

above said petition.

17. A perusal of the documents filed along with the above said

petition discloses that Mallaiah is the husband of the deceased

Peddalachu Nanchari, but there is no document showing that the

appellant is the son of deceased-Nanchari. Furthermore, the

surname of the petitioner as per Ex.A1-FIR is shown as

"Chigulapalli". The additional document i.e., Identity card of the

deceased issued by Mandal Parishad Development Officer,

Chegunta, filed by the petitioner discloses the surname of the

deceased as "Harijana". The additional document i.e., Voter card

of the deceased discloses her surname as "Peddalachu". In all the

documents relied upon by the petitioner discloses his father's

name as Mallaiah and there is no surname added to his father's

name.

18. In these circumstances, any amount of ambiguity 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 affidavit as to why these documents

could not be produced before the learned Tribunal whichis one of

the cardinal principles for entertaining a petition filed under Order

MGP,J I.A.No.1 of 2009 in /and

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 appellant 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 when the deceased was returning to her home after

attending coolie work, she boarded Tractor bearing No.AP-23T-

5387 coming from the back side and when 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 turtle and 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 subject 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.B1-Copy of Insurance Policy 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

MGP,J I.A.No.1 of 2009 in /and

petitioner is eligible for any compensation, he would have filed a

petition by invoking the provisions under Workmen's

Compensation Act where the Labours/workers working under the

Tractor would come under third party. Further, the contents in

Exs.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-Inquest report and Ex.A3-Charge sheet goes to

show that the deceased travelled on the Tractor as a passenger but

not as a labourer. Therefore, in the absence of cogent and

convincing material available on record, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the deceased travelled as a gratuitous

passenger and not as a Labourer on the subject Tractor for which

the appellant is not entitled for any compensation.

21. In view of the foregoing discussion, it can be held that the

Tribunal had rightly dismissed the claim petition. This Court do

not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the learned

Tribunal which is in proper perspective. Hence, the Appeal is

devoid of merits and substance and is liable to be dismissed.

22. In the result, I.A.No.1 of 2009 along with Appeal is

dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

23. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

Dt.04.03.2025 ysk