##PAGE1##

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.220 of 2019

DATE:29.01.2026

Between:

Smt. L. Sunitha and two others.

…..Appellants

AND

Smt. Venkateswaramma Laxmipet and another.

….Respondents

JUDGMENT

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

1988 (for short “M.V.Act”), is filed by the appellants–claimants

challenging the judgment and decree dated 10.08.2018 passed in

M.V.O.P.No.1753 of 2013by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-

cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (for short “the

Tribunal”), wherein the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed

under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, seeking compensation of

Rs.20,00,000 for the death of one L. Narsingh Rao (hereinafter

referred to as “the deceased”) in a motor vehicle accident

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 07.03.2013, at about

02:00 P.M., the deceased was proceeding as a pillion rider on a

motorbike bearing No. AP-23-S-7286 from Shaikpet, Dharga towards

2

R.C. Puram and when they reached near the Alind bus stop, the rider

of the said bike, one Venkatesh, drove the vehicle in a rash and

negligent manner at high speed, lost control, and dashed into a tree.

As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed

to death while undergoing treatment at Gandhi Hospital,

Secunderabad. On the strength of a complaint, the Chandanagar

Police registered a case in Crime No. 135/2013 under Section 338 of

the IPC, which was later altered to Sections 304-A and 337 of the IPC.

The claimants, who are the wife and children of the deceased filed the

claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.

3. Before the Tribunal, the respondent No.1-owner of the vehicle

remained ex parte.Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed counter

and an additional counter denying the material allegations. It was

contended that as per the police investigation and the charge sheet

(Ex.A2), the deceased was actually the rider of the motorcycle and died

due to his own negligence and therefore, the Insurance Company is

not liable to pay compensation.

4. The Tribunal, upon considering the oral evidence of PW-1 and

the documentary evidence i.e, Exs.A1 to A6, observed that in a

petition filed under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, negligence need not

be proved, and the involvement of the vehicle is sufficient. However,

the Tribunal relied on the inquest report (Ex.A4) and the final report

3

(Ex.A2) which stated that the deceased was riding the vehicle while

the other person was the pillion rider. Noting that the deceased had

borrowed the vehicle from his mother (Respondent No.1), the Tribunal

held that he stepped into the shoes of the owner and could not be

considered a "third party". On this technical ground, the claim petition

was dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that

the Tribunal failed to appreciate the beneficial nature of Section 163-

A, which is based on the principle of no-fault liability. He further

argued that the deceased was a third party to the contract of

insurance and that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim based

on the aspect of negligence. He also placed reliance on Ex.A3, the

salary certificate, to prove that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000

per month as a Manager.In support of his submissions, learned

counsel relied upon the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Urmila Halder, 12024 SCC OnLine SC 4983and K.R.

Jagadish and another vs. M/s. National Insurance Company

Limited and another²

6. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the

respondent No.2-Insurance Company supported the impugned award

passed by the Tribunal and ultimately prayed to dismiss the appeal.

2

2025 ACJ 1881

4

7. As seen from the material placed on record, the Tribunal framed

Issue No.1 regarding the occurrence of the accident involving the

vehicle in a public place, and Issue Nos. 2 and 4 regarding the

entitlement to compensation given the