An application for compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is maintainable by legal representatives of a deceased driver even if the driver was the tortfeasor, provided the vehicle is covered by a valid insurance policy, without the requirement to prove driver negligence.

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? Yes/No

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No

3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No

_________________________________

SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J

M.A.C.M.A.No.356 of 2022

21st November, 2025

Counsel for the Appellants : Sri Kuldeep Jadhav, learned counsel representing Sri N.Mukunda Reddy

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Smt. P.Satya Manjula

Gist:

Head Note:

CITATIONS:

1. (2012) 2 Supreme Court Cases 356

2. Civil Appeal No.9694 of 2013, dt.24.11.2017

3. (2004) 3 SCC 297

4. (2017) 16 SCC 680

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

JUDGMENT:

1. The present appeal is filed by the appellants-claimants assailing the order passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Sessions Judge for SCs/STs (POA) Act Cases-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in O.P.No.366 of 2016, dated 22.02.2022.

2. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal, for better understanding of the case.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants, who are the father and sister of the deceased-Pathipati Thirupathi, filed petition vide O.P. No.366 of 2016 before the Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in a road accident that occurred on 14.06.2008. It is contended by the claimants that the deceased was the driver of lorry bearing No. AP 16 TW 4214. On the fateful day, the deceased was proceeding with a load of cement in the said lorry from Peddavoora to Mallepally, and when the vehicle reached the outskirts of Sangaram village at 05:30 p.m., the deceased overtook a tractor. At the same time, another lorry bearing No. AP 27 T 5379, came from the opposite direction and the driver of the said lorry, while trying to avoid hitting the deceased’s lorry went ahead and colluded with a KM stone. However, the lorry bearing No.AP 29 T 9954, which was coming behind the said lorry bearing No.AP 27 T 5379, collided with the deceased’s lorry, due to which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries on the spot. It was further contended by the claimants that the deceased was employed with respondent No.1 as driver and died in the course of employment.

4. Accordingly, a case in crime No.47 of 2008 was registered by the police authorities of Peddavoora Police Station.

5. The claimants contended that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and used to contribute his earnings to the family members. Due to the untimely death of the deceased, the family of the deceased suffered grave loss.

6. The respondent No.1, who is the owner of the lorry, filed counter admitting the occurrence of the accident on 14.06.2008, age of the deceased as 23 years and that the deceased met with accident in the course of employment as driver. It is further contended by the respondent No.1 that as the crime vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and as the policy was valid till 10.09.2008, the insurance company is also liable along with respondent No.1.

7. The respondent No.2 also filed counter contending that the deceased has no valid subsisting driving license and the subject vehicle was not roadworthy to ply. The Insurance Company also denied the occurrence of the accident and such other factors and stated that there is a