S AMANULLAH Vs. JAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Pattukottai in MACTOP No. 78 of 1992 dated 30.11.1992. The owner of the bus and the insurance company are the appellant's in the above appeal.

(2.) ACCORDING to the claimants, the first, second third claimants are the wives of the deceased and the other claimants being the minor children of the deceased Balan. ACCORDING to them, the deceased Balan was a wood putter and bamboo basket maker by profession and he used to get a monthly income of Rs. 1,000/-. The whole family of the deceased was mainly depending on the income of the deceased. As a result of his death, the family finds it difficult for further livelihood without the income of the deceased. On 2.12.91 at about 14.30 hours, the deceased Balan was returning home through Vaduvoor Road. The Vaduvoor Road is in North South direction. The deceased was proceeding from South to North on the left side of the mud portion of the road. At that time the bus bearing registration No. TMK 9475 came in a rash and negligent manner from northern side and dashed against Balan, who was run over by the said bus. He died on the spot. The accident was purely due to rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and if the driver of the bus had been very careful enough in driving the bus, the accident could have been averted. Therefore the accident was purely due to rash and negligent driving of the bus. A total claim amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was prayed for as compensation.

(3.) HOWEVER, as regards entitlement of the amount of compensation to the claimants 2 and 3, who are stated to be second and third wives respectively of the deceased, I am inclined to hold that the Tribunal had fallen into error in allocating amounts to the claimants 2 and 3. The evidence of PW1 is very clear in the context of ascertaining as to who is the legitimate wife of the deceased. She claims to be the first wife and claimants 2 and 3 are said to be the second and third wives. There can be no doubt that claimants 2 and 3 cannot claim to be legally wedded. Neither claimant No. 2 nor claimant No. 3 had chosen to depose as witnesses to establish how they are in any manner the legally married wives of the deceased. Therefore, it has to be held that the second and third claimants are not the legally married wives of the deceased.