THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO DATED: 09^th MARCH 2026 Between:

1.Yammaji Chinna Gangadhar and another … Appellants - petitioners And

1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited., Represented by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, 608 & 609, 6th floor, Block-2, White House, Begumpet, Hyderabad 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 judgment passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge) at Nizamabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in OP.No.1072 of 2007, dated 05.10.2009, wherein the O.P filed by the appellants – petitioners came to be dismissed.

2. Appellants are the petitioners and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the respondents in the O.P.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants - petitioners submits that respondent No.2 herein is shown as respondent No.1 in the O.P, he remained ex-parte before the Tribunal, hence no notice is required to him in the appeal.

4. Appellants – petitioners are parents of the deceased Y.Praveen.

5.1 Appellants – petitioners have filed claim petition under Section 166(1)(c) of the MV Act read with Rule 455 of APMV Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of realization against respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally on the death of Y.Praveen.

5.2 On 22.06.2007 at about 09.15 p.m., Y.Praveen was driving scooter bearing No.AP-25/D-6377 cautiously from Hyderabad side towards Nizamabad, when he reached near Sagar Dabha, Nagpur gate, Nadipally village shivar, at the same time one lorry bearing No.AP-16/TV-4347 was stationed on the middle of the road without signals, back lights, danger lights, indicators, due to which Y.Praveen could not observe the stationed lorry and touched it from behind, due to which he sustained grievous injuries all over the body and he was shifted to Government Hospital Nizamabad, but he succumbed on the way. Deceased Praveen was aged about 22 years as on the date of accident, earning Rs.10,000/-

per month as Mason cum private works and prayed to allow the O.P.

6.1 Respondent No.2 – respondent No.1 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.

6.2 Respondent No.1 – respondent No.2 filed counter and denied the manner in which the accident has taken place and also denied the age and occupation of the deceased. It is further contended that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased, the owner and insurer of the scooter bearing No.AP-25/D-6377 are proper and necessary parties and prayed to dismiss the O.P.

7. The learned Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AP-16/TV-4347 by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so to what just amount and against whom?

3. To what relief?

8. Respondent No.1 – respondent No.2 has filed additional counter in the O.P. contending that the police has filed final report against the deceased as action abated. Basing on the additional counter the learned Tribunal has framed additional issues as under:

1. Whether the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the scooter bearing No.AP-25/D-6377?

2. Whether the driver of the scooter was having licence to drive the scooter?

9. Appellant No.2 – petitioner No.2 is examined as PW1, also examined PW2 – M.Ranjith, PW3 – Narsaiah and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. Respondent No.1 – respondent No.2 has examined RW1 –

R.Nageshwar Rao, RW2 – M.A.Waheed and got marked Exs.B1 to B5.

10. The learned Tribunal after analyzing the evidence adduced by the parties with that of the documents marked thereon has dismissed the O.P filed by the appellants – petitioners holding that the accident has occurred due to self ne