[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Bingi Rupa And 3 Others vs Bingi Sabitha And 3 Others on 25 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
M.A.C.M.A.No.707 of 2020
DATE: 25.03.2026
Between:
Bingi Rupa and three others.
.....Appellants
AND
Bingi Sabitha and three others.
....Respondents
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants challenging the
award and decree dated 04.07.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.671 of 2015
by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional
District Judge, Nalgonda (for short "the Tribunal"), wherein the Tribunal
granted a total compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- with interest @ 7.5%
per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization for the
death of one Prem Kumar (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased) in a
motor vehicle accident.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 10.08.2015 at about 5:50
p.m., the deceased was proceeding on his Pulsar motor cycle bearing
No. AP-24-AT-1694 from Valigonda village towards Guduru village and
when he reached the outskirts of Nagireddypally village, TSRTC bus
bearing No. AP-28-Z-6097 (hereinafter referred as "crime vehicle")
proceeding from Bhongir towards Nalgonda, was driven by its driver in
a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the deceased
from opposite direction. Due to which the deceased fell down from the
motor cycle, sustained head injury, fracture of right leg and other
injuries all over the body and died on the spot. The police of Bhongir
Rural Police Station registered a case in Crime No. 156 of 2015 for the
offence under Section 304-A of IPC against the driver of the crime
vehicle. The respondent No. 1 filed the aforesaid claim petition seeking
compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. The Tribunal, upon evaluating the
oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to
the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle and
accordingly, granted a total compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- with
interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
realization. The appellants, who are claiming to be the wife and married
sisters of the deceased, have filed the present appeal seeking to set
aside the award on the ground that respondent No.1 is not the legally
wedded wife of the deceased.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that appellant
No.1 herein is the first wife and appellant Nos.2 to 4 are the married
sisters of the deceased. It is contended that respondent No.1 is not the
wife of the deceased and by suppressing material facts she obtained
orders and therefore, she is not entitled for the compensation of
Rs.20,00,000/- awarded in M.V.O.P.No.671 of 2015. It is submitted
that the appellants along with respondent No.4 (mother of the deceased)
had already filed O.P. No.2238 of 2015 on the file of the Chief Judge,
City Civil Court, Hyderabad and as such prayed this Court to allow the
appeal as prayed for.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.1
contended that respondent No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the
deceased and the Tribunal, after considering the evidence of PWs.1 to 3
and exhibits A1 to A10, rightly awarded the compensation. It is further
contended that the appeal filed by the appellants is not maintainable as
they were not parties to the proceedings in M.V.O.P. No. 671 of 2015
and that O.P. No.2238 of 2015 filed by the appellants was already
dismissed for default.
5. As seen from the material on record, the dispute primarily
revolves around the entitlement of the appellants to the compensation
awarded for the death of the deceased-Bingi Prem Kumar. The
appellants herein claim to be the first wife and married sisters of the
deceased, asserting that Respondent No.1, who was awarded the bulk of
the compensation by the Tribunal, is not the legally wedded wife. It is
pertinent to note that the appellants had previously sought legal
recourse by filing O.P. No. 2238 of 2015 on the file of the Chief Judge,
City Civil Court, Hyderabad. However, the said petition was dismissed
for default vide order dated 08.05.2019, and no evidence has been
produced to show that the same was restored or that the appellants
were declared as the sole legal heirs. The Tribunal, while passing the
award in M.V.O.P.No. 671 of 2015, relied upon the oral evidence of
PW.1 and the documentary evidence, including the family member
certificate and other relevant documents, to conclude that Respondent
No.1 and the mother of the deceased (Respondent No.4 herein) are the
dependents. In the proceeding filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, the
Tribunal is not expected to conduct a roving inquiry into complex
questions of matrimonial status or title, especially when a parallel
proceeding in a competent Civil Court was initiated and subsequently
dismissed. The question as to whether the appellants are the "true"
legal heirs, involving the validity of marriages and succession, cannot be
adjudicated in the present appeal which is limited to the correctness of
the compensation awarded under the Act. Since the appellants failed to
prosecute their claims before the appropriate Civil Court and have not
placed any subsisting decree in their favor, this Court finds no illegality
or infirmity in the Tribunal's decision to award compensation to the
registered claimants. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in
the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. Accordingly,
this appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
6. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
Date: 25.03.2026
Bw
