IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO DATED: 13th FEBRUARY, 2026 BETWEEN:

1. Purushotham Satyanamma, W/o.Late Rajanna @ Rajaiah, Aged about 40 years, Occ: House wife, R/o.Godelli Mandal, Asifabad, Adilabad District and Others.

...Appellants-petitioners AND

1. Menthala Laxmaiah, S/o.Dadaji, Aged 51 years, Occ: Transport business, Also the custodian of accident Lorry bearing No.

APQ-8966, R/o.Mancherial, Adilabad District and Others.

...Respondents-Respondents

JUDGMENT

1. This Memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) assailing the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - III Additional District Judge (FTC), Asifabad in OP No.697 of 2000, dated 07.07.2006.

2. Appellants are the petitioners, respondents are the respondents in the O.P.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte before the Tribunal, hence they are not necessary parties to the Appeal.

4. Notice got issued to respondent No.3 in the Appeal is served on 05.03.2024 but there is no appearance.

5.1. Appellants-petitioners have filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w Section 140 and r/w Rule 455 of A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.2 Lakhs with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment on the death of Purushotam Rajanna @ Rajaiah.

5.2. Appellant No.1-petitioner No.1 is the wife, appellant Nos.2 to 4-petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are the children of the deceased Rajanna @ Rajaiah.

5.3. It is stated in the petition that on 17.10.1995 Rajanna @ Rajaiah was on duty in the Lorry as a cleaner vide Lorry bearing No.APQ 8896 belonging to respondent No.1. The lorry was returning to Mancherial, the driver of the vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner due to which one of the wheel of the lorry detached and went off the road, consequently the driver of the lorry lost control of the vehicle and dashed against a tree. Respondent No.1 came to the spot and instructed Rajanna @ Rajaiah to fix the wheel by using jockey but the jockey suddenly slipped and the wheel fell on him causing fracture to his spinal cord. Respondent No.1 assured that he would provide medical treatment for the injuries and requested Rajanna @ Rajaiah not to lodge any complaint. The respondent No.1 refused to provide medical treatment thereby appellant No.1-petitioner No.1 has lodged a complaint before the Police Mancherial on 11.11.1995, and a case in Crime No.188 of 1995 is registered under Section 338 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) Rajanna @ Rajaiah was initially admitted in Dr. Subash Nursing Home in Mancherial, on the advice of the Doctor he was shifted to Hospital at Secunderabad for treatment, he was brought to his village and he died on 29.02.1996 due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Rajanna @ Rajaiah was aged about 32 years as on the date of accident and was earning Rs.2,000/- per month. Respondent No.1 is the custodian of the lorry, respondent No.2 is the owner and respondent No.3 is the insurer and prayed to allow the OP as prayed for.

6. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte before the Tribunal.

7. Respondent No.3 filed counter, denied the age, income and the manner in which the accident has taken place and further contended that the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act would not apply since the alleged accident did not arise out of the use of the lorry and the deceased was said to have sustained injuries while he was repairing the vehicle and they are not entitled to claim compensation under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, even it is established that the deceased was working as a cleaner under respondent No.1. The driver of the lorry do not possess valid driving license as on the date of accident and prayed to dismiss the O.P.

8. The learned Tribunal has framed the following issues:

1. Whether