The judgment reinforces that compensation claims in motor vehicle accidents are determined on preponderance of probabilities, with the court upholding negligence leading to an award of compensation.

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. 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 employ