APHC010429182005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Wednesday, the twenty The Honourable Ms. Justice B .S. Bhanumathi M.A.C.M.A.No: Between: Alla Sarojini Alla Kondala Rao and others Counsel for the appellant: 1. Jayanti S.C.Sekhar Counsel for the respondents: 1. Naresh Byrapaneni The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) twenty fourth day of December two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B .S. Bhanumathi M.A.C.M.A.No: 2555 of 2005 ...Appellant and Alla Kondala Rao and others ...Respondent ppellant: Jayanti S.C.Sekhar espondents: The Court made the following: [3311] two thousand and Appellant espondents 2 MACMA No.2555 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and the decree dated 01.10.2003 in O.P.No.394 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram. 2. The appeal is filed by the claimant. The respondents are the respondents before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the claimant, is briefly, as follows: The petition was filed seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- under Section 163-A of the M.V.Act. Alla Govinda Rao (the deceased) is the son of the claimant. On 22.08.1999, the deceased was ploughing the land driving a tractor bearing No.AP 35 T 1057. The tractor turned turtle. The deceased sustained fatal injuries. The dead body was taken to the Government Hospital, Vizianagaram. 4. The respondent No.1 was the owner of the tractor. The respondent No.1 remained ex parte. 5. The respondent No.2 said to be the insurer of the tractor filed counter denying the averments in the petition and further stating that the accident was not occurred due to an act of God but due to self- negligence of the deceased and therefore, there is no liability to pay compensation to the claimant. Thereafter, the petitioner altered the provision of law from Section 166 to Section 163-A and 167 of the Act. 6. On behalf of the claimant, she got herself examined as P.W.1 and Ex.A.1 - True copy of the F.I.R. in Cr.No.91 of 1999 of Bhogapuram Police Station, Ex.A.2 –True copy of inquest report, Ex.A.3 -True copy of postmortem certificate of A.Govinda Rao, Ex.A.4 -True copy of M.V.I. report, Ex.A.5 -cover note and Ex.A.6 - driving licence of A.Govinda Rao (deceased) were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced. 3 MACMA No.2555 of 2005 7. After evaluating the evidence, the Tribunal held that the deceased died in the accident on 22.08.1999 involving the tractor. The Tribunal computed compensation of Rs.1,45,000/- on account of the death of the deceased. Out of the same, the petitioner was held entitled to Rs.72,750/- with proportionate costs as her half share, since the respondent No.1 / owner of the vehicle is the father of the deceased. 8. Insofar as the liability of the respondent No.2 is concerned, no evidence was led by the respondent No.2. However, the claimant filed a copy of cover note issued by the insurance company marked as Ex.A.5 and a copy of driving licence of the deceased marked as Ex.A.6. The Tribunal observed that no premium had been paid by the respondent No.1 covering the risk of driver. It was further observed that the claimant admitted, in her cross examination, that the deceased was not employed as a driver of the tractor by the date of the accident. Mainly on these two grounds, the liability against the respondent No.2 was dismissed. 9. Aggrieved by the award, the appeal was filed. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal erroneously found that no premium had been paid covering the risk of driver, whereas, the cover note (Ex.A5) shows payment of Rs.15,000/- for covering the risk of driver. There is no denial of the said fact. So, the observation of the Tribunal is obviously erroneous. 11. As the risk covered to a driver is not limited to an employee, the mere fact that the deceased was not employed cannot be a ground to reject the claim. The fact that the deceased was driving the insured vehicle at the time of the accident is undisputed. Since employment is not a sine qua non, the contention of the respondent No.2 for its liability cannot be accepted in the present case. As a result, the respondent No.2 is also liable to pay compensation to the claimant. Insofar as the 4 MACMA No.2555 of 2005 quantum of compensation is concerned, this Court does not see any reason to enhance the amount. 12. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by allowing the claim against the respondent No.2 as well. The rest of the award remains intact. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt.24.12.2025 PNV