Telangana High Court
Madunala Kavitha vs Syed Ahmed Ali And Another on 5 January, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.3112 OF 2011
JUDGMENT:
This MACMA is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the appellant/petitioner aggrieved by the order and decree dated 10.05.2011 passed in O.P.No. 99 of 2009 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge, Kamareddy (for short, "the Tribunal").
2. The Tribunal clubbed both the O.Ps. No.98 and O.P. No.99 of 2009 decided the issues commonly and finally, dismissed the both the O.Ps. by its order dt.10.05.2011.
3. For convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
4. Brief facts of the case in O.P. No.99 of 2009 are that the petitioner, who is the granddaughter of one Durgavva (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), filed a claim petition against the respondents claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident.
2
4(1) It is stated that on 29.12.2005 at about 8.00 a.m., when the deceased was sitting in front of Sai Baba Temple at Yellareddy, a jeep bearing No.AP-25-V-0788 came at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased; as such, she was shifted to the Hospital and died while undergoing treatment. Hence, the claim petition.
5. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. Respondent No. 2 filed a counter denying the averments of the petition and mainly contended that the accident was not due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep bearing No.AP-25-V-0788, but it was due to negligence on the part of the deceased herself, who was selling the coconut and flowers beside the road without following traffic rules. They contended that the petitioner was not the legal heir of the deceased and pointed out that the petitioner had not filed any document to show that she was the legal heir of the deceased. They further contended that the driver of the said jeep was not having a valid driving license at the time of the accident, and the same is violation of terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, they are not liable to pay compensation. 3
6. On behalf of the petitioner, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. No evidence was adduced on behalf of respondent No.2.
7. On appreciating the material available on record, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the petitioner/appellant.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners inter- alia contended that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the petitioner/appellant alone is only the legal heir born through the deceased's daughter, Smt. Anushavva, who left them 15 years ago, after the death of her husband and her whereabouts are not known. He further submitted that the appellant was brought up by the deceased from her childhood, and the deceased contributed her earnings; hence, the petitioner/appellant is the natural legal heir. He further contended that the respondents did not lead any evidence to show that the appellant is not at all the legal heir of the deceased. He further contended that the Tribunal ignored all relevant facts, law and brushed aside the evidence on record and came to wrong conclusions and dismissed the O.P. Accordingly, prayed to allow the appeal. He relied upon the 4 judgment of this Court in Dr. Gangaraju Sowmini Vs. Alavala Sudhakar Reddy and another 1.
9. The learned counsel for respondent no.2 had submitted that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the O.P. by considering the material available on record, and no interference is required by this Court.
10. In light of the rival contentions made by the learned counsel for respective parties, it is imperative to go through the observation made by the Tribunal. The Tribunal observed that the oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and the contents of FIR and the chargesheet, when read together, clearly show that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of jeep bearing No.AP-25-V-0788, as no rebuttal evidence was adduced by the respondents. The Tribunal further observed that the petitioner filed a certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat vide Ex.A4 to show that the petitioner is the granddaughter of the deceased. A perusal of Ex.A4 indicates that the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat has certified that the petitioner is the granddaughter of the deceased Durgavva, and one M. Anushavva is the daughter of 1 2016(2)ALD 226(FB) 5 the deceased. The said document shows that the deceased had a daughter by name Anushavva, but she was not made as a party to the present proceedings. The Tribunal further observed that, as per the version of the petitioner, the daughter of Durgavva was alive and her whereabouts are not known since 15 years and it goes to show that the petitioner, who is the alleged granddaughter of the deceased, would be entitled for any benefit of death of the Durgavva only through her mother i.e. Anushavva. But, since Anushavva was admittedly alive and not a party to the proceedings, the Tribunal concluded that the petitioner could not be treated as a legal heir and the dependent on the deceased, when her mother was still alive. As such, the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation.
11. This Court in Dr. Gangaraju Sowmini (1st supra) observed as follows:
"The term legal representative does not mean dependant only. It is fairly well settled that the legal representative is one who can represent the estate of the deceased. Further, in the judgment in Manjuri Beras case (9 supra), the Honble Supreme Court has held that the no fault liability envisaged under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act is distinguishable from the rule of strict liability. In the aforesaid judgment, it is further held that right to 6 make an application has to be considered in the background of right to entitlement. It is further held that while assessing the quantum of compensation, the multiplier system is applied because of deprivation of dependency. In the same judgment, it is also held that since the amount to be awarded under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act is a fixed/crystalised amount, the same is to be considered as a part of the estate of the deceased. Apart from the same, there can be a claim for compensation under other conventional heads which are to be necessarily incurred in the case of deaths. Accordingly, we answer the reference, holding that a non-dependant heir of the deceased who died in a motor accident is entitled to lay a claim for compensation under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 where there is no other dependant legal heir for claiming compensation. Thus, we approve the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Vanguard Insurance Co. Ltds case (2 supra) and hold that the view taken by the Division Bench in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltds case (1 supra), is not correct.
12. Initially, two claim petitions were filed before the Tribunal vide O.P. No.98 and 99 of 2000. In the O.P. No.98 of 2000, the petitioners claimed that they are the brother and grandson of the deceased Durgavva; as such, they are legal representatives of said Durgavva. In O.P. No.99 of 2000, the petitioner claimed that she is the granddaughter, as such, she is legal representative of deceased Durgavva. But, in both cases, they have not produced any legal heir certificate. In 7 O.P.No.99 of 2000, when once the petitioner's mother is alive, she, as a granddaughter of Durgavva, cannot claim compensation as a legal heir. Even otherwise, the petitioner did not produce any certificate showing that her mother is not alive. As such, the petitioner/appellant is not entitled to claim any compensation as a legal representative of Durgavva. In view of the observation made by this Court in the above referred decision, and as the Tribunal rightly concluded that the petitioner could not be treated as a legal heir, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation.
13. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed by confirming the order dt.10.05.2011 in O.P.No.99 of 2009 passed by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J 5th day of January, 2024 BDR