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.

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.

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

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

2016(2)ALD 226(FB)

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

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

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