Dismissed

Chevulapalli Bhudaiah , Pedda Lachu Bhudaiah v. R. Vittal and Another

Telangana HC4 Mar 2025MACMA/2170/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against dismissal of a compensation claim for a woman killed in a tractor accident. The court dismissed the petition to receive additional documents proving relationship and held the deceased was a gratuitous passenger not covered by the insurance policy.

What the court decided

AI extract

Chevulapalli Bhudaiah , Pedda Lachu Bhudaiah Vs R… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF^APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE^{M.G.PRIYAOARSINI}

¶5

l.A.No. 1 OF 2009

¶6

IN / AND

¶7

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS^{APPEALNO: 2170OF 2009}

¶8

Appeal filed under Section¹⁷³ of M.V.^{Act, aggrievedby the Judgmentand} Decree dt. 19.01.2007 in M.V.O.P.No.^{144 ol 2005, on the file of the MACT-Cum-lll} Addl. District & Sessions Judge^{(FTC), Medak.}

¶9

Between:

¶10

CHEVULAPALLI BHUDAIAH @^{PEDDA LACHU BHUDAIAH'S/o Mallaiah,} Occ: Agriculture, Aged about 50^{yrs, R/-o-. wadiaram,at Present residingat} narsingi Village, Chegunta mandal,^{Dist : Medak.}

¶11

...APPELLANT/ PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

1 R. VITTAL S/o. Papaiah, Major, Owner^{of Tractor No. AP-23-T-5387R/o} Wadiaram Village, Chegunta Mandal,^{MedakDistrict.}

¶14

2 The Branch manager, United lndia^{lnsuranceCoJnpaly LimitedBranch} Sanga Reddy, D.No.5-2-1717,^{Main Road,new Bus Stand, SangaReddy,}

¶15

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶16

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2009^{(MACMAMP. NO:3391 0F 2009)}

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of^{the petition, the High Court may be pleased} receive the documents 1l ldentity^{card issued by the election authority bearing} No.AP / 32t228t465165 describing^{her name as Peddalatchu NanchariWo} Mallaiah R/o0 H.No.2-38, Vidiyaram,^{Chegunta and also possessed 2l the} pension card issued by the Mandal Parishad^{DevelopmentOfficer, Mandal} irarishad, Chegunta, Medak^{Districtdescribing her name as Harijan Nanchari} Wo Mallaiah as additional^evidence.

¶18

Counsel for the Appellant : SRl.^{L PRABHAKARREDOY} Counsel for the Respondent- 2^{: 8477ruATCHUTA RAM} The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI .^Io.1 of 2OO9 (M .A.C.M.A. M.P.No.3391 of 2OO9 IN/AND M.A.C.M.A.No.21 70 of 2OO9

¶20

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶21

1 Aggrieved bl the dismissal order passed by the carned Motor Accidents Cla.ims^'l'ribu.ral cum- III Additional Disr., t & Sessions Judge (mC) , Medak, in M.V.O.p.No.144 of 2005, dated 19.O1.2OO7 , the petitioner in the said M.V.O.p. ;referred the present Appeai seeking to allou, the Appeal )). arvarding compensation.

¶22

For rht: sakc o[ conveniencc, the parties hcr<:inafter bc referred as th,:y u cre arr:rved bcfore tl,re lcarned Tribu rzrl. 3. The brief fircts of the case are that the peti io:rer filed a petition undt:r St.ction 16€r of the Motor Vehiclcs Act, lggg claiming cornpensation of Rs.75,OOO/_ for th: dcath of Smt.Nancharzrmrna (hereinafter referred as .the de,:casedJ in a motor vehiclc accidcnt t hat occurred on 14.11.2003.^.t is stated by the petitioner that on r 4.11.2oo3, when the deceased rvent to work as agricultureLl labourer on Tractor bearing No.Ap_2ir T_53g7 and when the Tractor reached near Wadiaram Shivar, the driver of the said Tractor drovc thc vel-ricle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed agairl.st Lhc culvcrt, due to which, the Tractor turned turtle and the deceased clied or-r the spot.

¶23

¶24

l.A.No.1of 2009 in /ond MACMA.No.2170 ol 20O9

¶25

Based on a complaint, Police of Chegunta Police Station registered a case in Crime No.137 of 2OO3 under Sections 337 and 304-A IPC against the crime vehicle.

¶26

It is stated by the petitioner that the deceased used to earn Rs.1,5O0/- per month bJ, working as a labourer. Due to sudden death of the deceased, petitioner suffered mentally and monetarily and therefore, filed claim petition seeking compensation against the respondents who are the owner and insurer of subject Tractor bcaring No.AP-23-T 5387.

¶27

Before the Tribunal, Respondent No.1 was set as ex,partc.

¶28

Respondent No.2/lnsurance Company filed its counter denying the averments madc in the claim petition including, age, occupation and income of the deceased and contended that the dcceased was travelling as an unauthorized passengcr but not as a labourer, as such, the petitioner is not entitled to claim compensation and therefore prayed to dismiss the claim against it.

¶29

Based on the pleadings made by both the parties, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues for conducting trial: -

¶30

t. Whether the accident occvrred due to rash and negligent driuing of the driuer of Tractor bearing No.AP 23-T-5387 ontg?

¶31

tl. Whether the claimant is entitted for compensation? If so, at what quantum?

¶32

¶33

MGP,I t ,.No ) al2oo9 in /ond htAcM/,_No 2170 oJ 2009

¶34

iii. To uhat rel[e]?

¶35

Before the Tribunal, the petitioner himself was t:xamined as PW 1 and gc,t marked trxs.A 1 to 46 on his behalf. On behalf of respondent/ Insurancc Compar-ry, no oral or docume ntary evidence was adduct:d, however, Ex.B1-Copy of Insuranr:e policy was marked with consen[.

¶36

i0. Since the petitioner failcd to show any re liabl,: documentary proof shorving thal the dcccased and Mallaiah are wife and husband anrl the petitioner is their son, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petitir>n. Aggrieved by the said hnding, the^petitioner preferred the: present Appeal sceking granI of compet^rsa tiol't.

¶37

Heard arguments submitted by Sri L.PraLhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the Appell:rnt and Sri V.Atchr-rta Ram, IearI-red Standing Counsel lor Respondcnt No.2/lnsurance C(,mpany.

¶38

The main contcntion of the learned counsel f,rr appellant is that the Tritrunal erroneously dismissed the claim tel ition in the absence of any rebuttal evidence and without th:re being any cogent evidence that the deceased u,as a gratuitous Da:lsenger and also merely relying upon the dcscription with regard to the name of the husband.

¶39

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel fo- Respondent No.2/Insurance Company contended that the Triburral hzrd rightly

¶40

¶41

MGP,)
t.a.No.1ol 2009 in /ond
MACMA-No 2170 ol 2009

¶42

dismissed the claim^{petitionas the petitioner failed to produce} necessary documentary^{proof evidencing that he is the son o[ the} deceased and Mallaiah^{was his father}

¶43

l4 Now the points that^{emerges for determinationare,}

¶44

(1) Whether the Judgment of the^{learned TialCourt} requires interference of this^Court?

¶45

(it) Whether the appetlant^{is entitLed} for^{compen-sation?}

¶46

POINTS:-

¶47

As seen from the^{record, thcre is no dispute about thc death} of the deceased. The only^{points that have to be dealt with in the} present Appeal are with regard to description of^{the nameof the} husband of the deceased and to^{establish whetherthe deceased} travelled as a gratuitous^{passenger or as a Labour on the subject} crime Tractor.

¶48

The Insurance Company is^{mainly disputingthal the} deceased and Mallaiah are wife^{and husband and that the} petitioner is their son. The^petitioner did^{not file any document} before the Tribunal to establish^{his relationshipwith the deceased.} However, during pendency of the^{Appeal, the appellant hled} I.A.No. 1 of 2OO9 under Order XLI Rule^{27 of tLre C.P.C.requesting} the Court to receive 2 documents^{vrz., (ll Identity card issued by} Election Authority showing the^{name of the deceased and (ii)}

¶49

¶50

MGP,J l.A No.1oJ 2009 in /ond MACMA-No-2170 ol 2O09

¶51

Pension carrl issued by Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Chegunta, Medak District as additional evic ence. 'l'he respondent/ )nsurance Company failed to file an1' < ounter to the above said pctition.

¶52

A perusal o[ the documcnts filcd along wilh the above s;rid petition discLoses that Mallaiah is thc husband of the deceased Peddalachu Ilanchari, but there is no documenl 5l1ru,ing that the appellant is the son of deceased-Nanchari. F ur he rmore, the surname of thc petitioner as pcr trx.A 1-FIR s shown as "Chigulapalli'. The additronal document i.c., ldentiLv card ol the deceased issued by Mandal Parishad Developrnent Ofhcer, Chegunta, fited by the petitioner discloses the surnzrme of the deceased as "Harijana". The additional document i.e., Voter card of the deceased discloses her surnamc as "Pcddalachu". In all the documents relied upon by the petitioner disclose:; his father's name as Mallaiah and there is no surname added to his father's name

¶53

ln these circumstances, any amount of ambil3uity is being created with regard to the relationship between the deceased and the petitioner and between Mallaiah and deceased. Moreover, the petitioner has not filed any aflidavit as to why ther;e documents could not be produced before the learned Tribunal v'hichis one of the cardinal principles for entertaining a petition filec under Order

¶54

¶55

MGP, lA-No.lol2009in /ond MACMA.NO.tll0 ol²⁰⁰⁹

¶56

XLI Rule 27 of C.P.C.^{Thus, viewed from any angle, the present} petition, to receive additional^{documents, deservesto be dismissed'}

¶57

Now coming to^{the questionof deceasedbeing a gratuitous} passenger or not, learned^{counsel for the appeliantcontendedthat} the Tribunal dismissed^{the claim petitionmerely on surmisesand} conjectures without there^{being any cogent evidenceto the effect} that the deceased was a^{gratuitouspassenger.}

¶58

In the complaint dated^{15.11.2003 given by the petitioner, it} is stated that whcn the deccased^{was returning to her homeafter} attending coolie work, she boarded^{Tractor bearingNo.AP-23T-} 5387 coming from the back side^{and whe nthe said Tractor} reached Wadiaram, the driver of the said^{Tractor drove the vehicle} in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the^{culvert, due to} which the Tractor turned turtlc zrnd the^{deceased sustained} grievous injuries and died on the spot. Whereas, in^{the petition} filed for claiming compensation, it is stated that^{the deceased} worked as a Labour on subjec[ Tractor.^Therefore, it^{can be seen} that there is ambiguity regarding travelling^{of the deceasedon the} subject Tractor either as^passenger or^as a^{labour. Even if the} deceased is considered to be working as^Labour on^{the subject} Tractor, a perusal of Ex.Bl-Copy of^{InsurancePoiicy clearly} discloses that the policy does not cover^{the risk of employees as no} additional premium was paid to^cover their risk.^{If at all, the}

¶59

rYt(rr,l t A No-1 ol 2ot)9 in /ond ,';t MA \o.2170 ol 2OO9

¶60

: €

¶61

petitioner is eligiblc for any cornpcnsation, he woulC havc filecl a petition by invoking the provisions under^Workmen's Compensation Act^where the^{Labours/workersworlingunderthe} Tractor would come under third^{party. Further,tL e contentsin} Exs.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-lnquest^{report and Ex.A3-Charge sheet goesto} show that the deceased travelled^{on the Tractoras a pzlss(rngerbut} nol as a labourcr. Therefore, in^{the absence ('[ cogent and} convincing tnatcrial^{available on rccord, this Court is of the} considered opinion^{that the deceased travelled as rgratuitous} passenger and nol as a Labourer^{on the subject Tractor lor which} thc appellan', is^{not cntitled for any compensation'}

¶62

In view of^{thc foregoingdiscussion, it can be hcld that the} Tribunal ha<l rightll'^{dismissedthe claimpetition lhis Court do} not find an]'i rezlson to^{inlerferevgith the finding r[ thc learned} Tribunal r,r,h.ich is in^{properperspective.Hence,thtl Appeal is} devoid of merits etnd substance^{and is liablc to be dismissed}

¶63

In th,: rcsult, i.A.No.I of^{2OO9 alongr,r' thAppealis} dismissed. There^{shallbe no order as to costs.}

¶64

ZJ Miscellaneous petitions^{pending, if any, shall startdclosed}

¶65

¶66

Sd/. T, JAYASREE I)EPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

<sup>sEcTtoN oFFlcER

To,

The MACT-Cum-lll Addl. District & Sessions Judge^(FTrl), Medak ? ne cc o SRI L PRABHAKAR REDDYAdvocate IOF UC -

¶71

¶72

One CC to SRl 8477N^{ATCHUTA RAM Advocate} [OPUC]

¶73

Two CD Copies (t-

\ \ DATED:0410412025

0 t

I ! i I t i

! I ': : i ! it I I I I

I 1 i Ii I

HIGH COURT

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.2170 of 2009

¶82

1,1? N6
iiIr L.l,J
.<br>,,::;:l*
{ '..'.|..r.'
i-! .i;

¶83

DISMTSSING THE APPEAL

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶88

FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶89

PRESENT

¶90

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶91

l.A.No. 1 OF 2009

¶92

IN / AND

¶93

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2170 OF 2009

¶94

Between:

¶95

CHEVULAPALLI BHUDAIAH @ PEDDA LACHU BHUDAIAH, S/o. Mallaiah, Occ: Agriculture, Aged about 50 yrs., R/o. wadiaram, at Present residing at narsingi Village, Chegunta mandal, Dist : Medak.

¶96

...APPELLANT/ PETITIONER

¶97

AND

¶98

R. VITTAL S/o. Papaiah, Major, Owner of Tractor No. AP-23-T-5387 R/o. Wadiaram Village, Chegunta Mandal, Medak District.

¶99

The Branch manager, United lndia lnsurance Company Lrmited Branch Sanga Reddy, D.No.5-2-1717, Main Road, new Bus Stand, Sanga Reddy,

¶100

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶101

Appeal filed under Sectron 173 of tM.V. Act, aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dt. 19.01.2007 in M.V.O.P.No. 144 of 2005, on the file of the MACT-Cum-lll Addl. District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Medak.

¶102

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate for the appellant and of Sri V. Achutaram, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶103

This court doth Order and Decree as follows

¶104

'l . That this Court while dismissing the appeal along with l A. No. 1 of 2009 confirmed all the averments made by the lower court.

¶105

That there shall be no order as to costs

¶106

Sd/- T. JAYASREE I)EPqTY REGTSTRAR

¶107

To,

¶108

\ .^u!,t,Vic,, t ."f J i "rr-

¶109

The MACT-Cum-lll Addl. Distnct & Sessions Judge (FTt)) lVledak

¶110

Two CD Copies.

HIGH COURT

DATED:0410412025

DECREE

MACMA.No.2170 of 2009

¶116

DISMISSINGTHE APPEAL

¶117

( tr
2.t
)'3 b

Chevulapalli Bhudaiah , Pedda Lachu Bhudaiah v. R. Vittal and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Chevulapalli Bhudaiah , Pedda Lachu Bhudaiah v. R. Vittal and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Bollepogu Meri , Meeramma and 2 Others

Galivadda Narsimulu Vs B.Kondal and Another

Dharavath Bhadru Vs Bherulal Bhill

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Veerasarapu Narender

Anumalla , Anumandal Ramesh, Karimnagar Dist 7 Anr. Vs M.Raju, Karimnagar Dist and 2 Others

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Nagilla Maraiah and 3 Ors.