1. Death in motor accident — Claim for compensation under Section 166, Motor Vehicles Act — Dismissal by Tribunal — Appeal against. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(AP) 1270
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.
Palli Durga & 4 Ots, W/o. Late Bangarayya – Appellant
Versus
V Satyanarayana E G District 4 Ots, S/o. Kondayya – Respondent
Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 786 Of 2012
Decided On : 27-02-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Polisetty Bala Venkata Koteswara Rao
For the Respondent: K Chidambaram, T Mahender Rao, M Bhaskara Lakshmi, Gudi Srinivasu, Turaga Sai Surya
For the Appellant : Polisetty Bala Venkata Koteswara Rao
For the Respondent: K Chidambaram, T Mahender Rao, M Bhaskara Lakshmi, Gudi Srinivasu, Turaga Sai Surya
In motor accident claims, the standard of proof is preponderance of probability. Insurance liability runs with the vehicle, so transfer of ownership does not absolve the insurer. Tribunals are empowered to award "just compensation" even if it exceeds the amount claimed in the petition.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166 and 168 - A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 - Rule 476 - Death in motor accident - Proof of negligence - Standard of proof in motor accident claims is preponderance of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt (Para 18) - Official records and crime reports can form the basis for awarding claims in a summary enquiry (Para 17).
(B) Insurance Liability - Transfer of ownership of a vehicle does not absolve the insurance company from its liability - It is settled law that the insurance policy runs with the vehicle and not with the owner (Para 35).
(C) Quantum of Compensation - Power of the Tribunal to award "just" compensation - There is no restriction on awarding compensation exceeding the amount claimed in the petition, as the function of the Court under Section 168 is to ensure the compensation is reasonable based on evidence (Paras 39, 45).
Facts of the case:
Claimants sought compensation for the death of a coconut plucker who was run over by a tractor-cum-trailer. The trial court dismissed the claim petition because the claimants failed to produce the original registration certificate to prove the transfer of ownership to the impleaded party, despite acknowledging that the insurance policies were in force on the date of the accident.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, as evidenced by the FIR, charge sheet, and eye-witness testimony. It held that the insurance companies are liable because the policies were valid and the transfer of ownership does not exonerate the insurer from third-party liability.
Issues: Whether the accident and negligence were proved by legal evidence; whether the dismissal of the claim by the trial court for lack of proof of ownership was sustainable in law; and the determination of just compensation including future prospects.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a holistic view must be taken in social welfare legislation, utilizing the preponderance of probability rather than strict proof. Since the insurance policy runs with the vehicle, the insurer remains liable regardless of the ownership transfer. Furthermore, the duty of the court is to fix just compensation to alleviate the misery of dependants, which may legally exceed the amount pleaded in the petition.
Result: Appeal allowed; compensation of Rs. 9,32,000/- with 6% interest per annum awarded.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- tort
-
practice and procedure
-
evidence
- standard of proof
- official records
-
evidence
-
statutory interpretation
-
motor vehicles act
- section 157
- section 166 (Para 2)
- section 168
- section 176
-
motor vehicles act
-
insurance
- third party risk
- transfer of policy
Table of Contents
JUDGMENT :
A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.
Introductory:
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2011 passed in M.V.O.P.No.29 of 2008 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional District Judge, Amalapuram (for short “the learned MACT”). The petitioners before the learned MACT are the appellants herein.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the dismissal of the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, wherein compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- was claimed for the death of Palli Bangarayya (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), the present appeal is filed.
3. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are the driver, owner and insurer of the tractor bearing Registration No.AP 5P 5228 and Respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein are the insurer of trailer bearing No.AP 5X 7352 and the registered owner of tractor respectively.
Case of the Claimants:
4(i). On 10.06.2007 at about 10.00 a.m., the deceased Palli Bangarayya, a coconut plucker, after completion of coconut plucking work at Chinnagullapalem, was returning to Kothapeta on his bicycle. When he reached near Old Ramalayam Centre, Kothapeta, East Godavari District, the tractor coming from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner dashed and ran over him, as a result of which the deceased died on the spot.
(ii). As on the date of accident, the deceased was aged 38 years, hale and healthy, working as a coconut plucker and earning Rs.200/- per day. On account of his untimely death, the petitioners lost their sole breadwinner and suffered irreparable loss.
5. During the pendency of the petition, respondent No.2 died and the petitioners filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead respondent No.5 as owner of tractor, which was allowed.
6. Respondent Nos.1 and 5 remained ex parte before the learned MACT.
Case of the Respondent–Insurance Company:
7(i). The age, occupation, income of the deceased and the manner of accident shall be proved.
(ii). Unless the petitioners/appellants establish ownership and insurance coverage in respect of the vehicle i.e. tractor-cum-trailer, the insurer is not liable.
(iii). There was no negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle.
8. On the strength of pleadings, the following Issues were settled for trial by the learned MACT:
(1). Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle i.e., Tractor-cum-Trailer bearing No.AP 5P 5228 and AP 5X 7352 by its driver i.e., 1st respondent?
(2). Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and against whom?
(3). To what relief?
Evidence before the learned MACT:
9(i). The 1st petitioner/ one Palli Durga, was examined as P.W.1, One Palingi Chittibabu, an eye witness, was examined as P.W.2 and one Palli Abbulu, Coconut plucker and third party examined as P.W.3.
(ii). The petitioners relied on Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-Inquest Report, Ex.A3- Postmortem Report and Ex.A4- Charge Sheet.
(iii). On behalf of the respondents, Ex.B1 and Ex.B2-copies of insurance policies were marked.
Findings of the learned MACT:
10(i). The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle and that the deceased died on the spot.
(ii). The policy under Ex.B1 was in force on the date of accident.
(iii). Petitioners failed to establish that respondent No.5 was the owner/insured of the tractor on the date of accident, as no original registration certificate was produced.
(iv). In the absence of proof of ownership in favour of the person impleaded, the insurer cannot be fastened with any liability.
Arguments in the Appeal:
For the Appellants:
11(i). The learned MACT failed to consider the statutory effect of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which provides that on transfer of a vehicle, the insurance policy is deemed to be transferred.
(ii). The learned MACT erred in holding that non-production of the original registration certificate is fatal.
(iii). The learned MACT ought to have held that the insurer is liable.
For the
