Smt.budumajji Eswari @ Eswara Rao v. Abbireddy Annavaram Satyanarayana 4 Ors

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY M.A.C.M.A. No.2888 of 2012 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the appellant, who is daughter- in-law of respondents 4 and 5, aggrieved by awarding share in the compensation amount to the respondents 4 and 5 in the compensation awarded vide Order dated 20.07.2012 in M.O.P.No.1092 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Visakhapatnam (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

2. Respondents 1 to 3 herein, who are driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle viz. lorry bearing Registration No.AP07X 3333, respectively are arrayed as not necessary parties to the present appeal.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5. Perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant and the respondents 4 and 5 entered into 3 SRKJ MACMA 2888 OF 2012 Ex.A7-agreement, whereunder the respondents 4 and 5 agreed to forego compensation amount to be granted by the Tribunal, and pursuant to the same, the respondents 4 and 5 are not entitled to any share in the compensation amount, but the Tribunal erred in awarding the share to the respondents 4 and 5, and hence, it is prayed to allow the appeal, awarding entire compensation amount appellant.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel respondents 4 and 5 contended that the deceased is the only son of respondents 4 and 5; that after demise of the deceased, the appellant obtained signatures of respondents 4 and 5 on the premise that the same are required for obtaining terminal benefits of their son, and Ex.A7 is a fabricated document; that the evidence of R.W.1 substantiates the same. It is his submission that the appellant having obtained terminal and service benefits of their son, did not pay a single pie to respondents 4 and 5; that by the date of death of the deceased, the appellant was pregnant and she immediately got aborted the pregnancy after death of the deceased without consent of respondents 4 and 5, and after getting service and 4 SRKJ MACMA 2888 OF 2012 terminal benefits, she remarried and got two children and is living happily; that she, being wife of their only son, has not taken the responsibilities of her husband in looking after the parents-in-law after death of the deceased; that the Tribunal rightly awarded share in the compensation to respondents 4 and 5 and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned Order passed by the Tribunal.

6. The point that falls for consideration is whether the Order dated 20.07.2012 passed by the Tribunal in M.O.P.No.1092 of 2007 awarding share to respondents 4 and 5 in the compensation awarded, is correct, legal and proper and whether it needs any interference by this Court?

7. One Budumajji Ramakrishna Rao (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the deceased’), who is husband of the appellant and son of respondents 4 and 5 herein, died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 21.07.2007. On the fateful day at about 7.00 AM, the deceased was going to duty by his two wheeler bearing No.AP31AS 2010 and when he reached bridge of Naval Dockyard, 1st respondent, who is driver of the offending vehicle viz. lorry bearing 5 SRKJ MACMA 2888 OF 2012 Registration No.AP07X 333, drove the lorry in rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and dashed the motor cycle of the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell down and sustained injuries, and he was shifted to INS Kalyani Hospital, but he succumbed to the injuries at 1.30 PM on the same day. Pursuant to a report lodged, police registered the case and filed charge sheet, after completion of investigation, against 1st respondent-driver of the offending lorry. The appellant filed M.O.P. No.1092 of 2007 before the Tribunal seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.18,00,000/-, by arraying her parents-in-law as respondents 4 and 5. The Tribunal, vide the impugned Order dated 20.07.2012, allowed the M.O.P. partly, awarding a sum of Rs.11,87,600/- towards compensation to the appellant and the respondents 4 and 5, with proportionate costs and subsequent interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The Tribunal ordered that out of the compensation amount, the appellant was entitled to a sum of Rs.5,87,600/- and the respondents 4 and 5 are entitled to a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- each. Aggrieved by awarding share to respondents 4 and 5, 6 SRKJ MACMA 2888 OF 2012 who are her parents-in-law, the appellant preferred the present appeal.

8. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, remained unchallenged.

9. Admittedly, the deceased is the only son of respondents 4 and 5. The deceased was working as a Sailor in Indian Navy. Marriage of the deceased with the appellant was performed on 08.03.2007. The deceased died in the road accident on 21.07.2007.

10. According to the case of the appellant, as per Ex.A7- Agreement dated 16.10.2007 entered into, between the appellant and the respondents 4 and 5, the latter agreed to forego their share in the compensation to be granted by the Tribunal and hence they are not entitled to any share in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The appellant, as P.W.1, reiterated the same in her 7 SRKJ MACMA 2888 OF 2012 evidence. P.W.3, who is arrayed as an attestor to Ex.A7, reiterated the same.

11. It is the case of the respondents 4 and 5 and the evidence of R.W.1 that signatures of respondents 4 and 5 were obtained on certain documents stating that they are required to receive terminal benefits of their son, and Ex.A7 is fabricated one. It is their case that the deceased is their only son and that the appellant, having obtained terminal and service benefits of their son, did not pay a single pie to respondents 4 and 5. It is also their case that by the date of death of the deceased, the appellant was pregnant and she immediately got aborted the pregnancy after death of the deceased without consent of respondents 4 and 5, and after getting service and terminal benefits, she remarried and got two children and is living happily. It is their further grievance that the appellant, being wife of their only son, has not taken the responsibilities of her husband in looking after the parents-in-law after death of the deceased.

12. Respondent No.4 was examined as R.W.1. The respondents 4 and 5 are aged about 74 and 78 years 8 SRKJ MACMA 2888 OF 2012 respectively. They are suffering from various old aged health ailments. They lost their only son in the subject accident. According to them, the appellant, being daughter-in-law, immediately after death of their son, changed her address, and having obtained the service and terminal benefits of their deceased son, she has not given a single pie to them, and further she is not taking their care and not looking after their welfare, after death of their son. Substantial portion of the compensation awarded is towards loss of dependency. It is the case of respondents 4 and 5 that there is no loss of dependency to the appellant, since she remarried and is living happily. Admittedly, having regard the aforesaid circumstances, the respondents 4 and 5 suffered loss of dependency. For loss of dependency, the respondents 4 and 5 are legally entitled to share in the compensation awarded under that head. Any agreement, executed to the contrary, does not disentitle them to the legal entitlement. Irrespective of the contents in Ex.A7, which are resiled, the respondents 4 and 5, being old aged parents of the deceased, are entitled to share in the compensation amount. The Tribunal rightly awarded share to the respondents 4 and 5 in the 9 SRKJ MACMA 2888 OF 2012 compensation awarded and there is no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

13. Accordingly, the MACMA is dismissed confirming the Order dated 20.07.2012 in M.O.P.No.1092 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. The interim order dated 01.10.2012 in MACMA MP No.6065 of 2012 stands vacated. The respondents 4 and 5 are entitled to withdraw the compensation awarded to them, along with accrued interest, without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs of the MACMA. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the MACMA shall stand closed.

29.11.2024 DRK ------------------------------------------------ JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY 10 SRKJ MACMA 2888 OF 2012 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY M.A.C.M.A. No.2888 of 2012 DRK

29.11.2024