BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL:
CUM:
II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURTS AT
HYDERABAD
PRESENT: SMT. Y.PADMA,
II Additional Chief Judge.
TUESDAY, DATED THIS THE 5 th DAY OF MAY, 2026
M.V.O.P.No. 569 of 2005
Between: Nimitha Rani, D/o. Late Sri Satish Kumar, aged about 17 years, Occ: Student, Minor, Represented by her brother Vikas Kumar, S/o. Late Sri Satish Kumar, aged about 23 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 8-2-576, Road No.7, Opp. Irani Conciliate, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
...Petitioner
And
1.United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Office, D.No. VI, 5-9-189, Lenin Estate, Gounfoundary, Hyderabad.
2.G. Tirupataiah, S/o. G. Naraiah, aged about Major, Occ: Driver (Lorry No. AP 12 T 6825), Ashok Layland 2516/IT, Driving License No. DLRAPO 12460 820003, R/o. H.No. 19-3-338, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad-500064.
3.G. Deena, D/o. W/o. Not Known to the petitioner, aged about Major, Occ: Business, Owner of the Lorry No. AP 12 T 6825, Ashok Layland 2516/IT, R/o. H.No. 23-1-644/1, Moghalpura, Hyderabad-500002.
4.The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Manager/Authorized Signatory, Divisional Office – IV, Pavani Estate,
M.V.O.P.No. 569 of 2005 2 of 32 DT: 05.05.2026
(Above, Indian Overseas Bank, Lakdikapul), Phone No. 040-23314319 and also D.No. 1-234, Canal Road, Anaparthy, E.G. District, AP – 533342, (This address is given as given in Insurance Policy No. 5516/2004) (Development Officer Code: 402, Office Code: 432 504, Agent Code: 90063, Policy Period: 18-12-2003 to 17-12- 2004).
5.T. Rafi, S/o. T. Mabu Sab, aged about Major, Occ: Business (Owner of Lorry No. AP 21 T 3177) R/o. H.No. 12/103, Main Bazar, Tadpatri, Anantapur District-515411.
...Respondents
(Amended as per Order passed in I.A.No. 1283 of 2025 in O.P.No. 569 of 2005 dt. 17-07-2025).
This Petition came up before me for disposal in the presence of Sri M/s. A.V. Krishna Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and
Sri M. Satish Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 and Sri
Deepak Sidhanthi, Advocate for the Respondent No.4
Respondents No.2, 3 and 5 remained exparte and after hearing both the learned Counsel, this Court delivered the following :
:: O R D E R ::
This MVOP is filed by the Petitioner under Section 166 of
M.V. Act 1988 and Rule 455 of MV Rules read with Section 140 of MV. Act 1989 seeking total compensation of Rs.14,36,920/-
M.V.O.P.No. 569 of 2005 3 of 32 DT: 05.05.2026
against the respondents jointly and severally along with interest and costs for the injuries sustained by her in a motor accident, which took place on 15-08-2004 at about 04:30 am in the limits of Pullur Village.
2.It is the case of the petitioner that her mother Lakshmi
Bai was owner of the Maruti Suzuki Car Bearing No. AP12 D 997 and it is insured with Respondent No.1. On 14.08.2004 in the morning hours, her family members received an information that her maternal uncle namely Prakash P, met with an accident at Bengaluru, therefore she along with her brother and mother started by Car bearing No AP12 D 997 to
Bengaluru. On their way, when they reached Pullur Village a
Lorry bearing No.AP12 T 6825 came with high speed in rash and negligent manner and hit to Maruti Car bearing No.AP 12 D 997, due to which, said car was badly damaged and her mother and driver of the said Car received severe bleeding injuries and died on the spot. She and her brother received multiple injuries and she received fractures to left leg.
Immediately she was admitted in the Appolo Hospital for
M.V.O.P.No. 569 of 2005 4 of 32 DT: 05.05.2026
treatment and she was treated in the said hospital as in patient. Injuries she received in the said accident, resulted in permanent disability and she spent huge amounts for the treatment. Against the said accident a complaint was lodged with the Police Station Manopad and said Police registered said complaint as in Crime No.57 of 2004 for the offense under Section 304 of IPC and 337 of IPC.
3.It is further case of the petitioner that the said accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the Lorry bearing
No.AP12 T 6825, but Police to the best reasons known to them stated that Maruti Car was at fault. Respondent No.2 is driver of the Lorry bearing No AP12 T 6825 and he gave false complaint taking advantage of the death of the driver of the Car bearing No
AP 12 D 997 as if driver of the Car bearing No AP12 D 997 was at fault and hit to the Lorry bearing No. AP21 T 3177.
Respondents No 2 and 3 are driver and owner of the Lorry bearing No. AP 12 T 6825 and it is insured with respondent No.4.
Since in the complaint it is mentioned that the Lorry bearing
No.AP 21 T 3177 also involved in the said accident, as
M.V.O.P.No. 569 of 2005 5 of 32 DT: 05.05.2026
abandoned caution, the owner and insurer of Lorry bearing
No.AP 21 T 3177 are impleaded as respondents No.4 and 5.
4.It is further case of petitioner that she sustained permanent disability and she is entitled for compensation of Rs.14,36,920/- and prayed to grant said compensation along with future interest at the rate of 18% per annum against the Respondents No.1 to 5.
5.Respondent No.1 filed Counter stating that, the present
Claim Petition is filed under Sections140, 163-A and 166 of
Motor Vehicles Act R/W Rule 475 of AP Motor Vehicle Rules 1989, which is not maintainable. Petitioner is not a Third Party to the vehicle bearing No. AP 12 D 997 and after death of the insured, petitioner being Legal Heir of owner of the said Car, automatically becomes insured, therefore petitioner is not entitled for any compensation and the present petition is not maintainable.
6.It is further case of respondent No.1 that, it is not admitting the manner and mode of the accident as stated by petitioner in the Petition. As per petitioner said accident occurred between
M.V.O.P.No. 569 of 2005 6 of 32 DT: 05.05.2026
Maruti Car bearing No.AP12 D 997 and the Lorry bearing No AP 12 T 6825, whereas petitioner failed to implead the owner, driver and insurer of said the Lorry bearing No. AP 12 T 6825, therefore the present petition is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties. Petitioner having claimed that said accident was caused by the Lorry bearing No.AP 12 T 6825 not claimed compensation against the owner, driver and insurer of the said
Lorry. The alleged age, occupation, income, treatment and disability are created only to claim excessive compensation.
Petitioner is none other than the daughter of the insured of the
Car No.AP 12 D 997 and after death of the insured, automatically petitioner becomes as insured under the Law and already brother of the petitioner claimed damages to the car. Petitioner cannot claim as Third party to the Car bearing No AP 12 D 997 and petitioner is not entitled for the compensation from it.
Petitioner has to prove that driver of the Car bearing No AP 12
D 997 had valid DL and said Car had valid Permit and Fitness. It has no knowledge about the Crime registered in Cr No 57 of 2004 for the offense under Section 304 A and 337 of IPC by
Police Manopad, Mahabubnagar District. The compensation
M.V.O.P.No. 569 of 2005 7 of 32 DT: 05.05.2026
claimed is excessive and it has no liability to Petitioner, therefore prayed to dismiss the Petition against it.
7.Initially the present Claim Petition was dismissed by the order dated 16.08.2007, against which MACME No 2045 of 2008 is filed. The Hon’ble High Court set aside the order dated 16.08.2007 and remanded the main case to this Court, permitting the petitioner to take necessary steps and to implead the Lorry bearing No AP 12 T 6825.
8.Thereafter Petitioner filed IA No 1238 of 2025 and by the order dated 17.07.2025, Petitioner got impleaded owner, driver and insurer of the Lorry bearing No AP 12 T 6825 as respondents
No.2 to 4 and owner and insurer of the Lorry bearing No.AP21 T 3177 as respondents No 4 and 5.
9.Respondents No.2, 3 and 5 remained exparte.
10.Respondent No.4 filed Counter denying the case of the petitioner and opposed the claim of the petitioner and further contended that, it is not admitting the allegations made in the
M.V.O.P.No. 569 of 2005 8 of 32 DT: 05.05.2026
petition and manner and mode of the accident as stated in the
Petition. It is not admitting the Policy bearing No.2004/5516 issued for the period 18.02.2003 to 17.12.2004 in respect of the
Lorry bearing No AP 12 T 6825 and Policy bearing No.2004/533 for the period of 01.05.2003 to 30.04.2004 in respect of the the
Lorry bearing No AP 21T 3177. As on the date of the accident
dated 15.08.2004, no Policy is in force to the Lorry bearing
No.AP 21 T 3177, but the Policy is in force to the Lorry bearing
No. AP 12 T 6825. It has no knowledge about the crime registered in vide Crime No.57 of 2004 for the offense under
Section 304-A and 337 of IPC against the driver of the Lorry bearing No AP 12 T 6825.
11.It is further contention of respondent No.4 is that, as per the Common Judgment dated 18.10.2004 of the Hon’ble High
Court in MACMA No’s. 2045 and 2049 of 2008, the owner, driver and insurer of the Lorry bearing No.AP 12 T 6825 are impleaded to this petition, but it has no liability since accident was not caused by said Lorry bearing No.AP 12 T 6825 and said
Lorry not involved in the said accident. As per the Police
M.V.O.P.No. 569 of 2005 9 of 32 DT: 05.05.2026
records, said Lorry No.AP 12 T 6825 is not involved in the said accident and said accident took place as Car bearing No.AP 12 D 997 dashed to the Lorry bearing No. AP 21 T 3177, therefore the driver and owner of the Lorry bearing No. AP 12 T 6825 has no liability to petitioner, therefore it has no liability to petitioner and even if liability is assumed it is liable to pay compensation from the date of it’s impleading but not from the date of the petition.
Petitioner against the directions of the order dated 18.10.2024 of the Hon’ble High Court, impleaded owner and insurer of the
Lorry bearing No.AP21 T 3177, but no Policy is in force as on the date of the accident that is 15.08.2004 to the Lorry No. AP 21
T 3177. Since said accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the Car bearing No.AP 12 D 997 as it hit to the
Lorry bearing No. AP 21 T 3177, therefore respondent No.1, respondent No.5, alone are responsible to pay the compensation to the petitioner, since no policy is in force to the Lorry No. AP 21 T 3177 and it has no liability to petitioner. Respondents No.3 and 5 not intimated about said accident and the violated the terms and conditions of the Policy, hence it has no liability. The
M.V.O.P.No. 569 of 2005 10 of 32 DT: 05.05.2026
compensation claimed is excessive hence prayed to dismiss the petition.
12.Respondent No.1 filed Additional Counter and almost reiterated the contents of earlier Counter and further stated that the present petition filed under Sections 166, 163A and 140 of MVA is not maintainable. Petitioner being the legal heir of the owner of the Car bearing No.AP 12 D 997, on death of owner who is insured automatically becomes the insured, therefore petitioner can not claim as Third party, as such petitioner is not entitled for the compensation. The said accident was caused only due to the negligence of the Car bearing No. AP 12D 997 as such it has no liability. The alleged income tax returns are created for the purpose of this case and petitioner has not sustained any loss. It is not admitting the contention of the petitioner that she lost jewelry, cash and articles worth of Rs.5,00,000/- and same is created to claim excessive compensation. It has no knowledge about false complaint given by the driver of the
Lorry bearing No AP 12 T 6825 to the Police. Since
M.V.O.P.No. 569 of 2005 11 of 32 DT: 05.05.2026
petitioner is not a third party and as per petitioner said accident took place due to the negligence of the driver of the
Lorry bearing No. AP 12 T 6825, it has no liability and prayed to dismiss the same.
13.On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial :
1. Whether the accident took place on 15.08.2005 at about 4.30 AM due to rash and negligent driving of Maruthi Car bearing No.AP 12D 997 by its driver?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation from the respondents? If so,
to what amount and from whom?
3. To what relief
14.Basing on the counter and Additional counter of
Respondent No.1 the issue No 1 is re-casted as under:-
Whether the accident dt.15.08.2004 at about 4.30
AM, took place at Manopad, Mahaboobnagar
District, is due to rash and negligent driving of
driver of Car bearing No.AP 12D 997?
M.V.O.P.No. 569 of 2005 12 of 32 DT: 05.05.2026
OR
due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of
Lorry bearing No.AP 12T 6825?
15.On behalf of the petitioner, PWs.1 and 2 are examined and Exs.A1 to A27 are marked and on behalf of the respondents, RWs.1 to 3 are examined and Exs.B1 to B5 are marked.
16.Heard both sides.
17.RE-CASETED ISSUE NO 1 :
In the present case, initially petitioner contended that accident dated 15.08.2004 was caused by the Lorry bearing
No.AP 12 T 6825 and got remanded the matter to this Court to implead, the owner, driver and insurer of the said Lorry bearing
No.AP 12 T 6825, whereas subsequently contrary to his earlier pleading petitioner got impleaded the owner and insurer of the
Lorry bearing No. AP 21 T 3177. As per the Police records, even the Lorry bearing No. AP 21 T 3177 also involved in the said accident, therefore to avoid further complication, this Court
M.V.O.P.No. 569 of 2005 13 of 32 DT: 05.05.2026
liberally permitted the petitioner to implead the owner and insurer of the Lorry bearing No.AP 21 T 3177 and further more since the Order dated 16.08.2007 of this Court is set aside and remanded back for fresh disposal, this Court got opportunity to re-appreciate the facts and decide who is at fault and who is responsible for said accident dated 15.08.2004 that is Car bearing No.AP 12 D 997 or the Lorry bearing No. AP 12 T 6825 or the Lorry bearing No. AP 21 T 3177, permitted to implead even the Lorry bearing No.AP 21 T 3177.
18. In the present case from the beginning it is the case of the petitioner that the driver of the Lorry bearing No.AP 12 T 6825 was at fault and responsible for the accident, but taking advantage of death of driver of the Car No.AP 12 D 997, said driver of the Lorry filed a false complaint against the Car No.AP 12 D 997. At present it is the contention of the petitioner that as abandoned caution she impleaded the respondent No.4 and 5 who are insurer and owner of the Lorry bearing No.AP 21 T 3177 but no where pleaded that said vehicle is responsible for
M.V.O.P.No. 569 of 2005 14 of 32 DT: 05.05.2026
accident and not pleaded how said vehicle No. AP 21 T 3177 was responsible for said accident and even not proved the same.
19.In the present case, as seen from the complaint, since in the said complaint it is mentioned about the Lorry bearing No. AP 21
T 3177 also involved and as this Court decided to re-appreciate the facts, now this Court has to see whether the Lorry bearing
No. AP 21 T 3177 is responsible for said accident or contributed anything for the said accident or not. As stated above petitioner no where pleaded how said vehicle caused the said accident or how it contributed to the said accident. This Court perused the
Ex.A19 complaint which was filed by the driver of the Lorry bearing No.AP 12 T 6825 to the Police Monophad, stating that he was proceeding from Kurnool towards Kollapur when he reached
Uttara Food Company, at 04:30 am a Lorry bearing No.AP 21 T 3177 which was proceeding ahead of Lorry bearing No.AP 12 T 6825 was stopped all of sudden and he tried to stop his vehicle meanwhile his Lorry bearing No.AP 12 T 6825 went and hit to lorry bearing No.AP 21 T 3177, then on verification he understood that, the driver of the Car came extreme right and
M.V.O.P.No. 569 of 2005 15 of 32 DT: 05.05.2026
dashed to the Lorry bearing No.AP 21 T 3177 on its front side.
Admittedly as seen from the record, petitioner not examined any other independent and eye witness to the said accident to ascertain the manner and mode of the accident that occurred on 15.08.2004. Petitioner did not choose to file Charge Sheet filed by Police in the above crime after investigation. In fact Charge
Sheet is the best of piece of evidence which may help to ascertain as per Police Investigation who was at fault and whom
Police found fault or against whom an accusation was made for the offence under Sec.304-A of IPC in respect of said accident. At present except Ex.A19 and oral testimony of PW1, there is no other material on record to ascertain the manner and mode of the accident. At the cost of the repetition, PW1 has not attributed anything against the driver of the Lorry bearing No.AP 21 T 3177. The averments of Ex.A19 shows that it is the driver of the
Car bearing No. AP 12 D 997 who went extreme right and hit to the Lorry bearing No. AP 21 T 3177.
20.In the present case, it is the contention of respondent No.1 and 4 that as per the Police records, the Car hit to the Lorry
M.V.O.P.No. 569 of 2005 16 of 32 DT: 05.05.2026
bearing No.AP 21 T 3177 and as per petitioner the driver of the
Lorry bearing No.AP 12 T 6825 is responsible for said accident, therefore it has no liability, whereas, it is the contention of respondent No.4 that petitioner not stated anything against the
Lorry bearing No.AP 21 T 3177 and since no policy is in-force, it has no liability. To prove the same respondent No.1 examined it’s
Officers as RW1 and RW2 and respondent No.4 as RW3. Whereas in the present case, even the respondents did not choose to file any Police record like scene of offence panchanama and MVI report. Therefore this Court has no opportunity to ascertain whether the Lorry bearing No.AP 21 T 3177 was at fault or contributed anything for the said accident or not. Therefore this
Court can safely conclude that petitioner failed to prove that the
Lorry bearing No. AP 21 T 3177 was at fault and caused the said accident or contributed anything in the said accident.
21. Now this Court has to see whether the accident dated 15.08.2004 was caused by the Car bearing No. AP D 997 or the
Lorry bearing No. AP 12 T 6825. in order to prove her case, she examined her brother and GPA holder as PW1 and he in his chief
M.V.O.P.No. 569 of 2005 17 of 32 DT: 05.05.2026
examination, almost reiterated the averments of the petition.
During cross examination she deposed that one lorry bearing
No.AP 12T 6825 dashed to Car by which she was travelling. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of lorry bearing No.AP 12T 6825. She is the legal heir of owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP 12D 997.
22.In the present case, to prove it’s case and to disprove the case of the petitioner, respondent No.4 examined it’s Officer as
RW3 and he deposed that he is not an eye witness to the said accident and as per the petitioner vehicle bearing No.AP 12 T 6825 caused the said accident.
23.This Court perused the averment of the petition, in it petitioner pleaded that “petitioner and his sister, mother along with their newly joined driver started, late in the night to
Bangalore to see the petitioner’s maternal uncle. On reaching the limits of Pulluru village, one lorry bearing No.AP 12T 6825 came with high speed in rash and negligent manner and hit to
Maruthi Car, due to which the vehicle tilted and damaged and
M.V.O.P.No. 569 of 2005 18 of 32 DT: 05.05.2026
passengers in the vehicle i.e., mother of the petitioner and driver died on the spot.”
24.As on the date of filing of the petition, petitioner got knowledge about the averments of the Ex.A19. When in Ex.A19 it is mentioned that the Car bearing No.AP 12D 997 was at fault, it is for the petitioner to plead specifically and explain the manner of the accident. Whereas, petitioner simply stated that the Lorry bearing No.AP 12T 6825 came with rash and negligent manner and dashed to the Car, except said pleading not explained how the said accident took place. As per the averments of the Ex.A19, the Lorry bearing No.AP 21T 3177 was ahead of Lorry bearing
No.AP 12T 6825 and the Car bearing No.AP 12 D 997 hit to the
Lorry bearing No.AP 21 T 3177 on the front side. When there is a specific averment that the Lorry bearing No.AP 21T 3177 is ahead of the Lorry bearing No.AP 12T 6825 it is for the petitioner to explain how the said Lorry went and hit to the Car, since it is not possible to hit the Car, which is coming in the opposite direction without hitting to the Lorry bearing No.AP 21T 3177 unless the said lorry bearing No.AP 12T 6825 tried to
M.V.O.P.No. 569 of 2005 19 of 32 DT: 05.05.2026
overtake Lorry bearing No.AP 21T 3177 and hit to Car, which came in opposite direction, but petitioner not pleaded that the
Lorry bearing No.AP 12T 6825 tried to overtake Lorry bearing
No.AP 21T 3177 and hit to Car. When in Ex.A19 it is specifically mentioned that Car hit to the Lorry bearing No.AP 21T 3177 definitely said Lorry bearing No.AP 21T 3177 might have received damages on front side. As stated above, petitioner did not choose to file Police record like chargesheet, scene of offence panchanama and MVI Reports. No proof is filed to show that the vehicle bearing No.AP 12T 6825 was damaged, due to collision of said Lorry and Car. No explanation is offered for not filing the said Police record and even did not choose to examine the
Investigating Officer, who investigated Ex.A19 crime. As stated above there is no specific pleading explaining the manner of the accident, when two or more vehicles are involved in the accident, it is for the parties to explain the manner and mode of the accident, which may help to ascertain, who was at fault. Since petitioner simply stated that the Lorry bearing No.AP 12T 6825 came with high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the Car, which is not sufficient to prove that said Lorry bearing
M.V.O.P.No. 569 of 2005 20 of 32 DT: 05.05.2026
No.AP 12T 6825 caused the accident and contributed for the said accident. From the manner of the accident as pleaded by petitioner and Ex.A19, it can be concluded that the accident dt.15.08.2004 was not caused by the Lorry bearing No.AP 12T 6825 and it was not at fault.
25.Admittedly in the present case petitioner who is the eye witness and insured deposed that said accident was caused by the Lorry bearing No.AP 12 T 6825. Since she is the eye witness, she is the best person to explain the manner and mode of the accident. Admittedly petitioner has not explained the manner and mode of the accident and only simply stated that said accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the
Lorry bearing No.AP 12 T 6825. As seen from the narration made in the Ex.A19:complaint it is the driver of the Car who came extreme right and hit to the lorry. As stated above since petitioner failed to plead and prove the manner and mode of the accident and further petitioner not filed charge sheet and not examined any other independent eye witness to prove the manner and mode of the accident and in the absence of the
M.V.O.P.No. 569 of 2005 21 of 32 DT: 05.05.2026
charge sheet or sketch map or MVI report this Court has no other option except to rely on the Ex.A19. Further more petitioner failed to disprove the contents of the Ex.A19. As it is established that no Policy is in force to the Lorry bearing No.AP 21 T 3177 as on the date of the accident, petitioner having knowledge of the said fact might have shifted the responsibility to the vehicle bearing No.AP 12T 6825. In view of the above observation, this Court has no other option except to conclude that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the Car bearing No.AP 12 D 997.
Accordingly, re-casted issue No.1 is answered.
26.ISSUE NO 2:
In the case on hand, it was concluded that the accident dt.15.08.2004 was not caused by the Lorry bearing No.AP 12T 6825, therefore, respondents No.2 to 4 have no liability to the petitioner. Further, it is established by virtue of Ex.B4 that no policy is in force to the Lorry bearing No.AP 21T 3177, therefore, respondent No.4 has no liability to the petitioner and as it is established that there is no negligence on the part of the driver
M.V.O.P.No. 569 of 2005 22 of 32 DT: 05.05.2026
of the Lorry bearing No.AP 21T 3177 even respondent No.5 have no liability to petitioner.
27.In the present case, it is established that the driver of the
Car bearing No.AP 12D 997 was at fault and it was responsible for the said accident and further admitted fact is that the Car bearing No.AP 12 D 997 was insured with Respondent No.1 under Ex.B1 policy and it is in force as on the date of the accident. The contents of Ex.B1 shows that it is a package policy.
28.In the case on hand, the main contention of the respondent
No.1 is that petitioner is none other than daughter of owner of the Car bearing No.AP 12D 997 and on death of said owner, petitioner and her siblings steps into the shoes of the owner and they being legal heirs already made a claim for the own damages and same was complied by the respondent No.1. Therefore, petitioner does not come under third party and petitioner is not entitled for compensation. To prove said contention respondent
No.1 examined RW1 and RW2. Whereas RW2 during cross
M.V.O.P.No. 569 of 2005 23 of 32 DT: 05.05.2026
examination admitted that Ex.B1 Policy Package Policy and it covers all third party risks. Under Package policy occupants of the car are covered. Petitioner is occupant of the Car. Crime was registered against the driver of the Car.
29. In the case on hand, the admitted fact is that mother of the petitioner was owner of the Car bearing No.AP 12D 997 and she died in the said accident, thereafter petitioner along with brother of the petitioner made a claim as a Legal heir of the original owner namely Lakshmi Bai and said claim was settled by respondent No.1. In supra issue, it was concluded that the Car bearing No.AP 12D 997 was at fault and responsible for the said accident and said Car was insured with respondent No.1 and policy was in force as on the date of accident and it is
Comprehensive Policy and it covers all Third party risks and occupants of the Car.
30.Now this Court has to see, whether petitioner comes under third party or petitioner steps into shoes of owner being the
Legal heir of the owner of the said Car on the death of owner or
M.V.O.P.No. 569 of 2005 24 of 32 DT: 05.05.2026
not or petitioner is occupant of the Car. At the cost of the reputation, Ex.B1 policy is a package policy and it covers third parties and even as per admission of RW2 it covers all the occupants of the Car. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of the National Insurance Co Ltd Vs Balakrishnan and another 2013 (1) SCC 731 observed at para 6 that the Honble High Court has returned a finding that the company and the Managing Director are two different legal entities and hence the Managing Director can not be equated with the owner. On that foundation the claimant has been treated as a passenger and accordingly, liability has been fastened on the insurer and further observed at para 21 that in view of the aforesaid factual position there is no scintilla of doubt that a comprehensive/package policy would cover the liability of the insurer for payment of the compensation for the occupant in a Car.
31.In the present case, the admitted fact is that petitioner is a occupant of the Car bearing No.AP 12 D 997 and the Ex.B1
Policy is Comprehensive/Package Policy and it covers third party as well as occupant of the said Car. The claim made by the
M.V.O.P.No. 569 of 2005 25 of 32 DT: 05.05.2026
petitioner being the legal heir of the original owner is different with claim made under the individual capacity or as occupant of the Car. Earlier claim made by the petitioner as a legal heir of the owner of the Car, as there was a contract between the owner of the vehicle and insurance company. The present claim made by Petitioner is under the individual capacity being an inmate of the Car, since there is a contract between the owner and insurer to indemnify the insured in case of any claim arising to the third party by usage of said vehicle. Since the petitioner is inmate of the Car and the claim made at present is in her individual capacity for the injuries received by her as the occupant of the
Car, the present claim petition is maintainable under Section 166 of the MV Act. Respondent No.1 being the insurance company liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
32.The learned counsel for Respondent No.1 further argued that the present petition is filed under Sections 163A, 166 and 140 above all provisions, therefore same is not maintainable and relied on the judgment held in the case the case of NEW INDIA
ASSURANCE CO., LTD., ARUNDALPET, GUNTUR Vs.,
M.V.O.P.No. 569 of 2005 26 of 32 DT: 05.05.2026
RAVELA YOHANU AND OTHERS reported in 2009 (5) ALD
647, wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that section 140, 163-
A and 166 are mutually exclusive of each other, therefore Claim petitioner cannot invoke all the above provisions.
33.In the present case, it is admitted fact that petitioner filed the present petition under Section 163-A and 166 of MV Act, which are mutually exclusive of each other. In the present case admitted fact is that, three vehicle involved in the said accident and it is further settled law that when more than one vehicles are involved it is for the petitioner to choose to proceed against any one or all of them. Therefore, the present claim petition is maintainable as three vehicles are involved and there is no certainty, who was actually at fault. Further it is settled law that mere quoting wrong provision of law is not a ground to deny the relief and further Motor Vehicles Act is beneficial Legislation and
Court comes to conclusion that petitioners are entitled for compensation under Sections 163 A or 166 even if, petition is filed under wrong provisions of Law, said petition can be treated as it filed under the correct provision of Law by ignoring wrong
M.V.O.P.No. 569 of 2005 27 of 32 DT: 05.05.2026
provision of Law quoted by the petitioner. Therefore, in the present case also this court is inclined to treat that the present
Claim petition as it filed under 166 of MV Act. In view of above reasons respondent No.1 is liable to pay compensation to petitioner.
34.QUANTUM:
As per Ex.A2, as on the date of accident, petitioner was a student and though petitioner filed Income Tax returns under
Ex.A3, showing the income, said Income Tax returns are silent about the source of income, therefore, same are not considered to assess the loss of the income. Even petitioner not pleaded what is the source of income. As seen from Ex.A2 petitioner just completed her SSC in the year 2003, therefore in the year 2004,
PW1 might be pursuing her intermediate, therefore she is treated as Student and the income shown in Ex.A2 might be from business as a partner and was in the absence of petitioner said business can be run. No proof of loss of income is filed. At present there is no material on record that petitioner lost her
M.V.O.P.No. 569 of 2005 28 of 32 DT: 05.05.2026
Academic year. Therefore under the head of loss of income petitioner is not entitled for any compensation.
35.In order to prove the nature of the injuries sustained by her, as well treatment obtained by her, the petitioner examined the
Doctor as PW.2. PW.2 corroborated the treatment and nature of injuries sustained by PW.1. Petitioner has paid Rs.1,00,920.45 to the Appolo Hospital under Ex.A5, paid Rs.10,000/- under Ex.A7, paid Rs.50/-, Rs.15,000/-, Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/-, Rs.5,000/-,
Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/-, Rs.5,000/- and Rs.7,000/- under Exs.A9 to A19, paid Rs.20/-, Rs.200/-, Rs.200/- and Rs.200/- under Exs.A24 to 27. Hence, PW.1 totally paid medical bills of
Rs.1,93,590.45/- and PW.1 is entitled for Rs.1,93,590.45 under medical expenditure.
36.As per Ex.A23, PW.1 sustained fracture of dislocation left hip, posterior dislocation right hip and foot drop left side, hence,
PW.1 is entitled for Rs.1,50,000/- under the head of pain and suffering. As per deposition of PW.2, injuries to PW.1 were healed and not filed any document to prove the disability.
M.V.O.P.No. 569 of 2005 29 of 32 DT: 05.05.2026
37.PW.1 was aged 18 years, she sustained fracture dislocation left hip, posterior dislocation right hip and foot drop left side, she is entitled for Rs.5,000/- under the head of extra nourishment.
PW.1 visited Appolo Hospital for followup treatment she is entitled for Rs.5,000/- towards transportation.
38.The petitioner is entitled for total compensation as under following heads :
Sl. Head Amount
No.
1.Compensation for pain andRs.1,50,000-00 suffering
2.Compensation for medicalRs.1,93,590-45 expenditure
3.Compensation forRs.5,000-00 transportation
4.Compensation for extraRs.5,000-00 nourishment Total :Rs. 3,53,590-45
Thus, in all, the Petitioner is entitled to claim a total compensation amount ofRs.3,53,590-00against the respondents No.1.
Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.
M.V.O.P.No. 569 of 2005 30 of 32 DT: 05.05.2026
39.ISSUE No. 3: To what relief?
In the result, this petition is allowed in part by granting a total compensation of Rs.3,53,590/- (Rupees Three Lakhs
Fifty Three Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Only) to the petitioner and against the Respondent No.1 with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of this petition till the date of realization.
The Respondent No.1 being the insurer of the crime vehicle is directed to deposit compensation amount along with proportionate costs and interest within a period of one month from today, failing which, the petitioner is entitled to recover the same by following due process of Law.
On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw entire compensation with costs and interest without furnishing any security.
Petition against the respondents No.2 to 5 is dismissed.
The office is directed to prepare decree on payment of court fee.
The rest of the claim of the petitioner is hereby dismissed.
M.V.O.P.No. 569 of 2005 31 of 32 DT: 05.05.2026
The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 5 th day of May, 2026.
CHAIRMAN,
MACT - cum - II Additional Chief Judge,
City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PETITIONER :FOR RESPONDENTS :
PW.1: Nimitha Rani RW.1: M.C.Balaji PW.2: Dr N. Somashekar ReddyRW.2: J. Gautam Prem RW.3: N. Chandrakala
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONER :
Ex.A1: Photograph showing the petitioner along with negatives Ex.A2: SSC certificate in original of petitioner Ex.A3: Insurance policy bearing No.051400/31/04/08546 of United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Ex.A4: IT returns of petitioner dt.31.07.2005 Ex.A5: Appolo Hospital bill showing the total amount Rs.1,00,920.45 and statement in 9 sheets dt.30.08.2004 Ex.A6: Statement dt.30.08.2004 Ex.A7: Bill for Rs.10,000/- dt.15.08.2004
M.V.O.P.No. 569 of 2005 32 of 32 DT: 05.05.2026
Ex.A8: Health check car Ex.A9: Receipt for Rs.50/- Ex.A10: Deposit of Rs.15,000/- dt.16.08.2004 Ex.A11: Deposit of Rs.10,000/- dt.17.08.2004 Ex.A12: Deposit of Rs.10,000/- dt.19.08.2004 Ex.A13: Deposit of Rs.5,000/- dt.20.08.2004 Ex.A14: Deposit of Rs.10,000/- dt.21.08.2004 Ex.A15: Deposit of Rs.10,000/- dt. 23.08.2004 Ex.A16: Deposit of Rs.10,000/- dt.24.08.2004 Ex.A17: Deposit of Rs.5,000/- dt.26.08.2004 Ex.A18: Deposit of Rs.7,000/- dt.30.08.2004 Ex.A19: FIR along with its enclosures dt.15.08.2004 Ex.A20CT Scan along with the reports of radiologist. to A22: Ex.A23: Discharge summary Ex.A24: Receipt dt.15.02.2005 Ex.A25: Receipt dt.15.02.2005 vide No.4619 Ex.A26: Receipt dt.17.11.2004 vide No.3038 Ex.A27: Receipt dt.25.10.2004 vide No.098520
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS:
Ex.B1: Policy Ex.B2: Authorization letter Ex.B3: Original policy of lorry bearing No.AP 12T 6825 with terms and conditions valid from 18.12.2003 to 17.12.2004. Ex.B4: Original policy of lorry bearing No.AP 21T 3177 with terms and conditions valid from 01.05.2003 to 30.04.2004. Ex.B5: Authorization letter
CHAIRMAN,
MACT - cum - II Additional Chief Judge,
City Civil Court, Hyderabad.