##PAGE1##

2025:APHC:60515

APHC010429182005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI [3311]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

Wednesday, the twenty fourth day of December two thousand and

twenty five

Present

The Honourable Ms. Justice B .S. Bhanumathi

M.A.C.M.A.No: 2555 of 2005

Between:

Alla Sarojini ...Appellant

and

Alla Kondala Rao and others ...Respondent

Counsel for the appellant:

1. Jayanti S.C.Sekhar

Counsel for the respondents:

1. Naresh Byrapaneni

The Court made the following:

2

MACMA No.2555 of 2020052 5 : A P H C : 6 0 515

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988 against the award and the decree dated 01.10.2003 in

O.P.No.394 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-

cum-Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram.

2. The appeal is filed by the claimant. The respondents are the

respondents before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the claimant, is briefly, as follows:

The petition was filed seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-

under Section 163-A of the M.V.Act. Alla Govinda Rao (the deceased)

is the son of the claimant. On 22.08.1999, the deceased was ploughing

the land driving a tractor bearing No.AP 35 T 1057. The tractor turned

turtle. The deceased sustained fatal injuries. The dead body was taken

to the Government Hospital, Vizianagaram.

4. The respondent No.1 was the owner of the tractor. The

respondent No.1 remained ex parte.

5. The respondent No.2 said to be the insurer of the tractor filed

counter denying the averments in the petition and further stating that the

accident was not occurred due to an act of God but due to self-

negligence of the deceased and therefore, there is no liability to pay

compensation to the claimant. Thereafter, the petitioner altered the

provision of law from Section 166 to Section 163-A and 167 of the Act.

6. On behalf of the claimant, she got herself examined as P.W.1 and

Ex.A.1 - True copy of the F.I.R. in Cr.No.91 of 1999 of Bhogapuram

Police Station, Ex.A.2 –True copy of inquest report, Ex.A.3 -True copy

of postmortem certificate of A.Govinda Rao, Ex.A.4 -True copy of M.V.I.

report, Ex.A.5 -cover note and Ex.A.6 - driving licence of A.Govinda

Rao (deceased) were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or

documentary evidence has been adduced.

3

MACMA No.2555 of 2020052 5 : A P H C : 6 0 515

7. After evaluating the evidence, the Tribunal held that the deceased

died in the accident on 22.08.1999 involving the tractor. The Tribunal

computed compensation of Rs.1,45,000/- on account of the death of the

deceased. Out of the same, the petitioner was held entitled to

Rs.72,750/- with proportionate costs as her half share, since the

respondent No.1 / owner of the vehicle is the father of the deceased.

8. Insofar as the liability of the respondent No.2 is concerned, no

evidence was led by the respondent No.2. However, the claimant filed

a copy of cover note issued by the insurance company marked as

Ex.A.5 and a copy of driving licence of the deceased marked as Ex.A.6.

The Tribunal observed that no premium had been paid by the

respondent No.1 covering the risk of driver. It was further observed that

the claimant admitted, in her cross examination, that the deceased was

not employed as a driver of the tractor by the date of the accident.

Mainly on these two grounds, the liability against the respondent No.2

was dismissed.

9. Aggrieved by the award, the appeal was filed.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal

erroneously found that no premium had been paid covering the risk of

driver, whereas, the cover note (Ex.A5) shows payment of Rs.15,000/-

for covering the risk of driver. There is no denial of the said fact. So,

the observation of the Tribunal is obviously erroneous.

11. As the risk covered to a driver is not limited to an employee, the

mere fact that the deceased was not employed cannot be a ground to

reject the claim. The fact that the deceased was driving the insured

vehicle at the time of the accident is undisputed. Since employment is

not a sine