Shaik Shabha Ali vs Andhra Pradesh State Road ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3711 Tel

     HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

              M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2773 and 3166 of 2018

COMMON JUDGMENT :

        These two appeals are arising out of the common judgment

dated 06.06.2018, in MVOP.No.411 of 2012 and MVOP.No.293 of

2012 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Family

Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Nizamabad.


2.      The facts of the case in nutshell are that on 07.11.2011 at

6.00 p.m., the deceased Shaik Gouse was proceeding on his

motorcycle bearing No.AP-25-A-5691 from Nizamabad to Armoor

and when he reached the outskirts of Ramachandrapalli, the driver

of the RTC bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner at a

high speed and dashed against the deceased, due to which, he fell

down and the front wheels of the bus ran over the deceased, who

sustained fractures and injuries all over the body and died on the

spot.


3.      MVOP.No.293 of 2012 was filed by the wife and son of the

deceased against the RTC, claiming a compensation of

Rs.4,00,000/-, whereas, MVOP.No.411 of 2012 was filed by the
                                  2
                                                                GAC, J
                                          MACMA.Nos.2773 & 3166 of 2016



parents, brothers and sisters of the deceased, claiming a

compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. The Tribunal clubbed both the

OPs., and passed a common order dated 06.06.2018 and granted a

total compensation of Rs.12,64,000/- to all the claimants and

apportioned the compensation amount as under:

      For the claimants in MVOP.No.411 of 2012

      Claimant No.1/father of the deceased -        Rs.1,50,000/-
      Claimant No.2/mother of the deceased-         Rs.1,50,000/-
      Claimant No.3/brother of the deceased-        Rs.1,50,000/-
      Claimant No.4/Sister of the deceased -        Rs.1,50,000/-
      Claimant No.5/Sister of the deceased -        Rs.1,50,000/-
      Claimant No.6/brother of the deceased-        Rs.1,50,000/-

      For the claimants in MVOP.No.293 of 2012

      Claimant No.1/wife of the deceased     -      Rs.2,59,000/-
      Claimant No.2/son of the deceased      -      Rs.1,05,000/-


4.    Being aggrieved by the above apportionment made by the

Tribunal, the claimants in MVOP.No.293 of 2012 have preferred

the present two appeals. On perusal of the record, it is evident that

the 2nd appellant is the minor son of the deceased, who was aged

about two years as on the date of filing of the OP before the

Tribunal and the 1st appellant, being mother, is the natural guardian

of the 2nd appellant.
                                   3
                                                                 GAC, J
                                           MACMA.Nos.2773 & 3166 of 2016



5.    Inspite of receiving notices in the appeals, none appeared for

the respondents i.e. for the parents, brothers and sisters of the

deceased.

6. As the appeals are filed only being aggrieved by the

apportionment of compensation made by the Tribunal, it is not

necessary to deal with the quantum of compensation granted by the

Tribunal or the liability of the respondents.

7. It is the contention of the appellants in both the appeals that

they are the real victims who are facing financial loss and loss of

love and affection due to the death of the deceased. It is

specifically urged by the learned counsel for the appellants that the

Tribunal ought not to have apportioned the amount to the brothers

and sisters of the deceased, who are majors as on the date of the

accident, apart from the parents. There is no evidence on record to

show the occupations/avocations/professions of the claimants in

MVOP.No.411 of 2012, who are the parents, brothers and sisters of

the deceased. It is an admitted fact that the 1st appellant is the wife

of the deceased, who needs financial assistance to bring up the

GAC, J MACMA.Nos.2773 & 3166 of 2016

minor child in the society in the absence of male earning member.

Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal

committed error in apportioning the amount between all the family

members of the deceased. It is the first and foremost duty

incumbent upon the Tribunal to ensure the welfare of the minor

child rather than the other family members whether earning or not.

It is also relevant to mention that there is no specific pleading

before the Court that all the claimants in MVOP.No.411 of 2012

are depending upon the earnings of the deceased. Therefore, it is

just and necessary to modify the orders of the Tribunal only as to

the apportionment of compensation is concerned, and therefore, the

orders of the Tribunal are modified with apportionment of

compensation as under:

For the claimants in MVOP.No.411 of 2012 Claimant No.1/father of the deceased - Rs.1,00,000/- Claimant No.2/mother of the deceased- Rs.1,00,000/- Claimant No.3/brother of the deceased- Rs.50,000/- Claimant No.4/Sister of the deceased - Rs.50,000/- Claimant No.5/Sister of the deceased - Rs.50,000/- Claimant No.6/brother of the deceased- Rs.50,000/-

For the claimants in MVOP.No.293 of 2012 Claimant No.1/wife of the deceased - Rs.2,59,000/- Claimant No.2/son of the deceased - Rs.6,05,000/-

GAC, J MACMA.Nos.2773 & 3166 of 2016

8. All the claimants in MVOP.No.411 of 2012 and the 1st

claimant in MVOP.No.293 of 2012 are permitted to withdraw their

shares of compensation along with costs and interest and the

liability of the 2nd respondent/RTC shall hold good, as specified in

the common order of the Tribunal, dated 06.06.2018. The share of

the 2nd appellant, who is the minor son of the deceased, shall be

deposited in a fixed deposit in any Nationalised Bank till he attains

majority.

9. With the above modifications, both the appeals are

disposed of.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 14.07.2022

ajr