IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY M.A.C.M.A.No.218 of 2019 DATE: 27.01.2026 Between:

Orsu Saidamma and another …..Appellants AND Putta Mallaiah and three others ….Respondents

JUDGMENT

This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is filed by the appellants–claimants challenging the judgment and decree dated 28-08-2018 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Nalgonda (for short “the Tribunal”) in M.V.O.P.No.992 of 2013, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed under Sections 163-A read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the death of their daughter Orsu Swathi (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in a motor accident. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 11-07-2012, at about 12:00 noon, the deceased was traveling on a tractor and trailer bearing registration Nos.AP-24-Y-2271 and AP-24-Y-2272, driven by respondent No.1 and when the tractor reached near Y.S.R. Park, B. Vellemula Village, Nalgonda, the driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, which resulted in the deceased falling from the trailer and sustaining fatal injuries. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to Kamineni Hospital, Narketpally, for medical treatment but she succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. The police of Narketpally Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.132 of 2012 under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the said tractor and trailer. Stating that the deceased was hale and healthy and a brilliant student and due to her sudden death in the accident, they suffered loss, the appellants-claimants filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal under Sections 163-A read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

3. Before the Tribunal, the claim against respondent No.1 (driver) was incorrectly recorded as dismissed on 28.4.2014, even though the record shows that respondent No.1 had died during the pendency of the proceedings and no steps were taken to bring his legal representatives on record; accordingly, the claim against him ought to be treated as abated rather than dismissed, and the order is corrected on that basis. As per the orders in IA.No.631 of 2017 dated 10.1.2018, respondent No.4 was impleaded and remained ex parte, while Respondents No.2 and No.3 contested the matter. It is also noted that although a counter was purportedly filed for respondent No.2, no such counter appears on record and an advocate’s counter was mistakenly recorded for R-2 instead of R-3; this is accordingly treated as the counter of respondent No.3, and it appears that respondent No.2, despite filing vakalath, did not thereafter prosecute the case, contributing to the delay in disposal. Respondent No.3-insurance company denied the petition on both law and facts, disputing the date, time, manner of the accident, the injury and death of the deceased, the FIR registration, age and relationship of the deceased to the appellants, and alleging violations of licence and policy conditions, and accordingly denied liability and sought dismissal of the claim petition.

4. The Tribunal, on appreciation oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and trailer. However, it dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the appellants had failed to conclusively establish the ownership of the offending vehicle in the name of respondent No.2 and the liability of the insurer-respondent No.3. The Tribunal further held that in the absence of clear evidence regarding ownership and insurance, the claim could not be sustained, notwithstanding its finding on negligence. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemen