B PADMA Vs. B KONDAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants herein are the petitioners in O. P. No. 839 of 1985 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Karimnagar. The legal representatives of the driver of the lorry No. APT 1 who died in the accident claimed compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/ -. It has been found that adopted son's parents are coming forward taking advantage of some of the observations in the judgments. That cannot be encouraged, duly taking into account that the Tribunals are making summary enquiries. Mere production of a certificate by the adopted son's parents otherwise just before the claim will not be sufficient, particularly when there is no material found that on previous occasion or at prior point of time, there was an adoption. The adoption that was set up for the purpose of this claim, at that time, just by obtaining a certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, cannot be accepted. This observation has to be given duly taking into account the rejection of the claim of the adoptive parents in this case, who are claimant Nos. 2 and 3 (appellants ). It is unfortunate that under the guise of this plea, viz. , that they are adopted son's parents, they are claiming the compensation.

(2.) THE fertile imagination of the claimants, by inventing method of an adoption, to claim compensation cannot be encouraged and it must be curbed at the beginning itself. In this case, the finding of the court is that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of other lorry. On a perusal of the order, it is found that the insurance company has also not filed any appeal. Since the finding is in favour of the claimants it cannot be disturbed. The other finding of the lower court is that the income of the deceased is about Rs. 600/- and it arrived to the conclusion that he may be able to spare only Rs. 300/- towards his family. In this case, not only the deceased, the deceased is having wife and three minor children. When the deceased is having four persons to be maintained it cannot be said that the deceased was utilising half of the amount and it can be said that one-third of his salary might have been utilised as a major member and remaining 2/3rd or so might have been utilised for the members of his family, viz. , wife and three children. It is in that context the apportionment that has been made by the lower court into 300 : 300 has to be altered into 400:200. Accordingly multiplier of 12 has to be applied. Even if it is applied, it will come to extra Rs. 14,400/ -. The claimants are entitled for this enhanced amount. With regard to loss of consortium the lower court granted Rs. 5,000/- and as the finding of the court below is reasonable, it does not require any interference by this court. However, the claimants are entitled to 12 per cent interest on the original amount and on the enhanced amount from the date of the order of the lower court.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY the petition is allowed.