IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY M.A.C.M.A.No.48 of 2016 Date : 16.03.2026 Between:

Bandi Padma and another …. Appellants/Petitioners AND Ravuri Vishwanadham and another ..Respondents/Respondents

JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 31.12.2011 (hereinafter will be referred as ‘impugned order’) passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge) at Khammam (hereinafter will be referred as ‘Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.1130 of 2008, the appellants/claimants preferred the present Appeal for enhancement of the compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal for the death of Bandi Naresh (hereinafter shall be referred to as ‘deceased) in the road traffic accident which occurred on 18.11.2007.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their status before the learned Tribunal.

I. BRIEF FACTS

3. The brief facts of the case as borne out from the record are as under:

a) The claimants, who are mother and sister of the deceased, filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- against the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 for the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident occurred on 18.11.2007. On 18.11.2007 while the deceased (pillion rider) along with his friend by name Mallela Satish (rider) were proceeding on motorcycle bearing No.AP 16 C 9394, a tractor bearing No. AP 16 P 7597 being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner at high speed coming from Vatsaval side to Chillakallu on wrong side and dashed against the motorcycle near Makkapeta Village Junction. As a result, rider of the motorcycle sustained grievous injuries and the deceased died on the spot. A case in Cr.No.104 of 2007 under Sections 304-A and 337 of the IPC was registered against the driver of the tractor. The deceased was alleged to have been aged 19 years and studying degree. The respondent No.1 is the owner of the vehicle, which was insured with respondent No.2 and the policy issued by respondent No.2 was in force as on the date of accident. Hence, the claimants claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondents.

4. In reply to the aforesaid petition averments, the respondent No.1 filed counter mainly contending that there was rash and negligent driving on the part of riders of the motorcycle as well as tractor, however, since he got insured the tractor and on verifying the driver’s capacity, he handed over the tractor to the driver. Hence, the respondent No.1 prayed to dismiss the petition. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 filed counter denying the manner of the accident age, avocation and health condition of the deceased. It is further contended that the petitioners are put to strict proof of valid driving license and insurance coverage. Finally, the respondent No.2 prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. In order to establish the claim before the learned Tribunal, the petitioner examined PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6 on their behalf. On behalf of respondent No.2, no oral evidence was adduced but got marked Ex.B1 copy of insurance policy.

6. The learned Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, passed the impugned order awarding Rs.1,37,000/- as compensation to the claimants. Aggrieved thereby, the claimants preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation as awarded by learned Tribunal.

7. Heard Sri Pulla Rao Yellanki, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Sri P. Satya Manjula, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company and perused the material available on record including the grounds of Appeal.

8. Now the point that arises for determination in this Appeal is:

Whether there are any tenable grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal?

9. POINT: There is no dispute with regard to the manner of the accident. Admittedly, the polic