Pulagurtha Veera Mani 2 Ors vs Komarapu Satyanarayana 6 Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 4109 AP

               HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

                            M.A.C.M.A.No. 237 of 2006

JUDGMENT: (Heard and pronounced through Blue Jeans App (Virtual)
          mode, since this mode is adopted on account of prevalence of
          COVID-19 pandemic)

      The appellants are claimants in M.V.O.P.No.282 of 1999 on the file of the

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge,

East Godavari at Kakinada (for short 'the Claims Tribunal').


2.    By a common award dated 28.10.2005, the Claims Tribunal dismissed

M.V.O.P.No.282 of 1999 filed by the appellants, while allowing M.V.O.P.No.538

of 2004 filed by respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein.

3. In the claim petition in M.V.O.P.No.282 of 1999, it is claimed that the

claimants are the legal representatives of one Mr. Pulagurtha Satyanarayana, who

died in a road accident that occurred on 28.04.1999. It is averred that the 1st

appellant is the wife, 2nd appellant is the daughter and 3rd appellant is the son of the

deceased Satyanarayana. While stating that they are depending on the earnings of

the deceased, they claimed a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- against the 3rd

respondent-Insurance Company.

4. Claiming to be the legal representatives of the deceased Satyanarayana, one

Smt. Pulagurtha Lakshmi and others, who are respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein, filed a

separate claim petition in M.V.O.P.No.538 of 2004 seeking compensation of

Rs.3,60,000/- for the death of the said Satyanarayana.

5. The Claims Tribunal clubbed both the M.V.O.Ps. and recorded evidence.

Insofar as issue No.2 with regard to the entitlement of compensation, the Claims

Tribunal after considering the evidence on record concluded that the claimants in

M.V.O.P.No.282 of 1999 i.e., the appellants herein failed to establish that they are

the legal representatives of the deceased Satyanarayana, and further that the

claimants in M.V.O.P.No.538 of 2004 succeeded in establishing that they are the

wife and children of the deceased Satyanarayana.

6. Heard Mr. N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, and Smt.

S.A.V. Ratnam, learned standing counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants, while referring to the various

grounds, made an attempt to impress upon this Court that the Claims Tribunal

erred in recording the conclusions against the appellants in the present appeal.

However, this Court, on perusing the material on record, is of the considered

opinion that the Claims Tribunal had dealt with the aspect of entitlement of

compensation by thorough examination of the evidence on record and recorded the

conclusions in this regard, supported by sound reasons. Therefore, this Court is

not inclined to interfere with the findings of the Claims Tribunal by re-appreciating

the evidence on record. Further, as noticed earlier, a common award was passed

by the Claims Tribunal dismissing M.V.O.P.No.282 of 1999 filed by the appellants

and allowing M.V.O.P.No.538 of 2004 filed by respondent Nos.4 to 7, but no

separate appeal is filed against M.V.O.P.No.538 of 2004. Be that as it may. In

view of the well considered award passed by the Claims Tribunal, this Court finds

no reason to interfere with the award under appeal.

8. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. No order as to costs.

9. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall

stand dismissed.

_______________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J 20th October, 2021 cbs

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

M.A.C.M.A.No. 237 of 2006

20th October, 2021

cbs