M.V.O.P No. 143 of 2002 · Andhra Pradesh High Court

This appeal is filed by the appellants/petitioners under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short (cid:145)the Act(cid:146)), aggrieved by the award dated 01.09.2007, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (cid:150)cum- IV Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, in M.V.O.P.No.143 of 2002, dismissing the petition.

The claimant filed the above O.P, under Section 166 of the Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- on account of the death of Smt K. Manemma, wife of petitioner, in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 7.4.2002 at about 1.05 pm near Jamalpalle (cid:150) NTPC on Kadapa (cid:150) Rayachoti main Road. It is stated in the claim petition that the petitioner(cid:146)s TT Safari was stopped by the side of the road to attend calls of nature and after attending the calls of nature when she was retuning, the driver of Mahindra Armada Jeep bearing No. AP 09 H 8771 of the 1st respondent, insured with the 2nd respondent, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased Manemma and, as a result of which, she sustained injuries and succumbed to injuries on the spot.

The first respondent, owner of the vehicle, remained ex parte before the Tribunal. 2 ANIS,J CMA NO. 153 OF 2008

The second respondent, insurer of the vehicle, filed counter denying the averments in the claim petition. In its counter, the second respondent stated that on 07.04.2002, the petitioner murdered the deceased Manemma and gave a false complaint to claim compensation and there was no motor accident. It is stated that C.K.Dinee Police registered a case in Crime No.135 of 2003, for the offences under Section 302 and 201 IPC, against the petitioner and others alleging that they killed the deceased as the deceased was not the wedded wife of the petitioner, that the petitioner married one Udayalakshmi at Gannavaram in the year 1984 and had two children, that the petitioner came down to Tirupati and started living with the deceased Manemma, that the petitioner is not the legal heir or legal representative of the deceased and, therefore, sought for dismissal of the O.P.

Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following three issues:

Whether the deceased K.Manemma died in the motor vehicle accident on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of Jeep bearing No.AP-09-H-8771 of first respondent?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom?

To what relief An additional issue was also framed: Whether the petitioner is the legal heir of the deceased K.Manemma? 3 ANIS,J CMA NO. 153 OF 2008

To substantiate the claim, PWs 1 to 4 were examined and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.14. On behalf of the second respondent, RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked.

Basing on the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the petitioner failed to establish the fact that he is the husband of the deceased Manemma and as such, he is not the legal representative of the deceased Manemma and therefore, he is not entitled to any compensation.

Not satisfied with the nil award passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred the present appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal without considering the evidence of PW.2 who categorically stated that the petitioner is the wife of the deceased Manemma dismissed the claim. It is further contended that the said Manemma executed Ex.A.12 will, bequeathing all her properties in favour of the sons of the appellant through his first wife, viz. Udayalakshmi; and the Tribunal having accepted Ex.A.12 ought to have held that the appellant is entitled to compensation.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed awarding of compensation to the petitioner on the ground that the Tribunal after considering oral and documentary evidence rightly held that the petitioner is not the husband of the deceased Manemma, whereas Sri Venkata Subbaiah is the husband of the deceased Manemma. 4 ANIS,J CMA NO. 153 OF 2008 He further contended that the wife of the petitioner is Smt Udayalakshmi and when the marriage of the petitioner with Smt Udayalakshmi is subsisting, the petitioner cannot claim to be the legal representative of the deceased Manemma.

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel the appellant, the point that arises consideration is: Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation and the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

The evidence of PWs.1 and 3 is that the accident took place due to the negligence of Manemma and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep. RW.1, administrative officer, in his evidence stated that investigator was appointed and as per Ex.B.1 report, the death of the deceased was not on account of motor vehicle accident and it was a murder. Ex.A.12, certified copy of will, is said to have been executed by Manemma in favour of the sons of the petitioner through Smt Udayalakshmi. Since the marriage between the petitioner and Smt Udayalakshmi is subsisting, the second marriage, if any, between the petitioner and the deceased Manemma cannot be said to be valid. Therefore, the petitioner is neither the legal representative nor the dependent on the deceased Manemma. The Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim of the petitioner. 5 ANIS,J CMA NO. 153 OF 2008