VENKATALAKSHMAMMA Vs. R VIJAYARAGHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) both these appeals arise from the same judgment and award in M.V.C. 14/1981, a claim preferred by the mother, sisters and brother of one somasekhara who died as a result of a motor vehicle accident involving motorcycle No. Mey 7885 which occurred on 7-8-1980 in K.R. Pel. The tribunal awarded global compensation of Rs. 13,200/- only in favour of the mother of the deceased and that too, only against the alleged driver of the vehicle. The owner and insurer were exonerated from their liability. The claimants have preferred the first appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation and also for award in favour of all the claimants and also against the owner and insurer of the vehicle. The alleged driver has preferred the second appeal challenging the finding that he was driving the vehicle or that he was negligent and he has also challenged the award, so far as the other respondents being exonerated.

(2.) for easy reference, the parties shall hereafter, be referred to by virtue of their ranks before the tribunal.

(3.) the finding that the sisters and brother of the deceased arc not entitled lo recover any compensation as they arc not legal reprcsenlalives of the deceased is clearly unsupportable as it is fairly well settled that persons who arc not legal rcprcscnlatives in strict sense of the term, but nevertheless were dependants on the deceased arc entitled lo recover compensation on the groundof loss of dependency. This aspect of the matter was not disputed by anyone in the course of these appeals. The finding of the tribunal that the motorcycle was driven at the lime of the accident by respondent No. 2 and that the accident was occasioned on account of the rash and negligent driving were not seriously disputed by his learned advocate. Even otherwise, there is sufficient material to justify the conclusion of the tribunal in this regard. P.w. 2 has sworn about respondent No. 2 being the driver of the motor cycle at the relevant time and, there is no serious cross-examination. Respondent No. 2 who has examined himself as D.W. 3 has admitted that he was prosecuted by the police in respect of this accident and further he also sustained injuries in the course of the same. No particular material has been placed by him to the effect that the police had any grouse against him and, therefore, they had falsely implicated him in the criminal case. Having regard lo all ihcsc aspecls, it appears to us that no different conclusion is possible on this aspect of the matter.