The court affirmed that claims for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act are maintainable even if underlying motives suggest foul play, provided the accident arises from vehicle use.

JUDGMENT

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) 

Heard Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record.

2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short ‘M.V.Act’) has been filed by the appellant, challenging the award dated 26.04.2024, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (VIII Additional District Court), Ongole (in short ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.253 of 2018.

3. The Tribunal allowed the MVOP with cots, awarding compensation of Rs.32,09,000/- with future interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit of the amount.

4. The aforesaid MVOP was filed by the present respondents No.1 to 4, claiming compensation on account of death of Bodapati Satyanarayana, the deceased, who went out from his house on his motorcycle to Surampalli Hanumantha Weigh Bridge, Chimakurthy on 02.04.2917 at about 4 p.m. While returning to home, when he entered into Ongole-Podili road and took a turn to Chimakurthy, his motorcycle was dashed by the offending car bearing registration No.AP27-BF9369 being driven by its driver rashly and negligently with high speed, which was proceeding to Ongole. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.

5. The claimant/1 st respondent is the widow and claimant/3 rd respondent is the son of the deceased. The other two claimants/respondents No.2 & 4 are the daughters of the deceased. The claim was filed against the 5 th respondent herein the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle, and its insurer, the National Insurance Company Limited, the present 6 th respondent. The appellant herein was the 3 rd respondent in the MVOP. The appellant is also the son of the deceased late Bodapati Satyanarayana and thus, related to the claimants. It appears that he did not join the claimants-respondents and consequently, was impleaded as 3 rd respondent in MVOP.

6. Case of the respondent-insurance company was that at the time of incident the deceased was aged 65 years and was riding motorcycle without driving licence and without wearing helmet and accident occurred due to his own negligence and that the accident was not reported by the insured in collusion with the petitioners/claimants with a view to cause loss to the insurance company, which was not liable to pay any compensation.

7. The appellant (3 rd respondent in MVOP) filed counter in MVOP. He strongly suspected the involvement of the husband of the 2 nd claimant (daughter of the deceased) with the driver of the offending car in causing accident to murder Bodapati Satyanarayana, and to detect the truth, he filed the complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District. The police, after investigation, closed the complaint. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed W.P.No.5260 of 2019 before this Court seeking impartial investigation either by CBI or CBCID. At that time of decision in MVOP, that writ petition was pending. The appellant in his counter submitted that the claimants intentionally suppressed the said fact for getting wrongful gain. He requested to dismiss the MVOP.

8. The Tribunal framed the following issues:

“1) Whether the accident had occurred on 02.04.2017 in which Bodapati Satyanarayana died due to rash and negligent driving of the TATA Tiago car bearing No.AP 27 BF 9369 by 1 st respondent or was there any negligence on the part of the deceased?

2) Whether the petition is bad for non joinder of owner and insurer of the motorcycle as necessary parties?

3) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount against which of the respondents?

4) To what relief?”

9. In evidence, on behalf of the claimants, P