*THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO % 18—08—2025 # 1.Smt.P.Saraswathi and others … Appellants vs.

$ 1. Samreddy Ram Reddy and others.

… Respondents !Counsel for the Appellants: Mr.B.Venkat Reddy ^Counsel for Respondent No.2: Mr.Harinath Reddy Soma

>Head Note :

? Cases referred:

(2022) 10 SCC 512

2025 ACJ 867 1983 ACJ 110

2008 (3) ALD 80 (DB)

2024 SCC OnLine SC 3779 (2009) 6 SCC 121 (2017) 16 SCC 680 (2018) 18 SCC 130

2022 SCC OnLine SC 1683 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HYDERABAD * * * *

MACMA.NO.114 OF 2022 Between:

1.Smt.P.Saraswathi and others … Appellants And

1.Samreddy Ram Reddy and others.

… Respondents JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 18.08.2025 THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

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

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes

3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes _____________________________ B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO,J THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

JUDGMENT:

1. This appeal is filed by the claim petitioners under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which arises out of an award passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in MVOP.No. 203 of 2015 dated 05.11.2021.

2.1. Appellants - petitioners have filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 (M.V.Act) and Rule 455 of the A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 read with Section 163-B of M.V.Act seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- from respondent Nos.1 to 3 on account of the death of P.Lokesh in a motor vehicle accident, which took place on 02.12.2014.

2.2. Appellant No.1-petitioner No.1 is the wife, appellant Nos.2 and 3-petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the son and daughter of Late P.Lokesh.

3. On 02.12.2014 at about 09.00 hours, P.Lokesh was proceeding on scooter bearing No.AP-28-D-9362 from Hayatnagar to Torrur, when he reached near Balreddy Poultry farms at that time one Hero Honda Passion motor Cycle bearing No.AP-29-BU- 2000 came in rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed him, due to which he fell down on the road and sustained head injury, multiple injuries all over the body and he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, while undergoing treatment he succumbed to injuries on 03.12.2014. The deceased was working as granite stone cutter and earning Rs.12,000/- per month and was aged about 36 years as on the date of the accident. Due to the death of the deceased, the appellants have suffered mental agony and lost his love and affection. On the complaint, Police Station Hayatnagar registered a case in Crime No.968 of 2014 under Section 304A of IPC against the driver of the Hero Honda Passion motor cycle bearing No.AP-29-BU-2000.

4.1 Respondent No.1 – owner of the crime vehicle filed counter, denied the accident and further contended that his vehicle is insured with respondent No.2 and the driver possess valid driving licence as on the date of accident. Hence he is not liable to pay the compensation.

4.2 Respondent No.2-insurance company filed counter denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased and the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of the deceased and the rider of the crime vehicle and petition is not maintainable for non- joinder of necessary parties i.e, owner and insurer of scooter bearing No.AP-28-D-9362. It further contended that the driver of the crime vehicle do not possess valid driving licence as on the date of accident. In the FIR offending motor vehicle number was not mentioned, which stated as unknown vehicle driven by one Raghavender Reddy, who caused the accident. In the charge sheet and in the claim petition, the offending driver name is mentioned as K.Jaganmohan Reddy and claim made by the appellants-

petitioners is excessive and exorbitant.

4.3 Respondent No.3-driver filed counter and denied the averments of the claim petition. Criminal ca