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

1. Smt.Suru Bai and others … Appellants - Petitioners And

1. Dugga Sukhvender Singh and another … Respondents - Respondents

JUDGMENT

1. This memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the MV Act’) assailing the award passed by the Family Court – cum – VII Additional District and Sessions Judge Medak, Sangareddy (for short ‘the Tribunal’)

in OP.No.23 of 2011, dated 14.02.2012.

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

3. Notice got issued to respondent No.1 in the appeal is served on

31.08.2012 but none appeared for him.

4.1 Appellants – petitioners have filed claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of realization on the death of Ravi @ Ravi Kumar.

4.2 On 18.01.2009 at about 11.30 p.m., Ravi @ Ravi Kumar was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No.MH-14-M-2799 from Bhokadi to KSB Chowk in Pune, one Tempo bearing No.MH-09-Q-3012 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed the motorcycle of Ravi @ Ravi Kumar in opposite direction, as a result he sustained grievous injuries, was admitted in YCM hospital, Pune and later succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment. The police, Pimpri registered a case in Crime No.30/2009 under Section 304-A of IPC against the driver of the Tempo. Deceased Ravi @ Ravi Kumar was aged about 35 years as on the date of accident, working as a supervisor in Shangrilla Constructions Company, Pune, earning Rs.12,000/- per month and prayed to award compensation against the respondents jointly and severally.

5. Respondent No.1 filed counter and denied the age and occupation of the deceased and also denied the manner in which the accident has taken place. It is further contended that the claim made by the appellants – petitioners is excessive, vehicle is insured with respondent No.2 and the insurance policy is legally valid as on the date of accident.

6. Respondent No.2 filed counter and denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased and also denied the manner in which the accident has taken place. It is further contended that the deceased himself was negligent while driving his motorcycle and was responsible for the accident. The drivers of both the vehicles involved in the accident do not possess valid driving licence as on the date of accident and the owner and insurance company of the vehicle are proper and necessary parties to the petition. It is further denied that the crime vehicle was insured with respondent No.2. The insurance policy number shown in the claim petition does not tally with the series of the policy issued by the respondent and prayed to dismiss the O.P.

7. The learned Tribunal has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the alleged accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle driven by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?

3. To what relief?

8. Appellant No.1 is examined as PW1, examined PW2 Rajkumar, PW3 – Bheemashankar Sharanappa Tarahu and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. Assistant Manager of respondent No.2 is examined as RW1 -

V.Anjaneyulu and got marked Exs.B1 to B4.

9. The learned Tribunal after going though the evidence adduced by the parties with that of the documents marked thereon, has exonerated respondent No.2 in paying the compensation and fastened the liability on the respondent No.1 holding that he is liable to pay compensation of Rs.5,55,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of deposit.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners submits that the learned Tribunal committed grave error in awarding compensation against r