KOMPELLI VENKATAIAH Vs. MOHD AFZAL MIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants who are the father, sisters and brothers of K. Mahender (the deceased) filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000.00 alleging that when the deceased and others were proceeding in an auto bearing No.AP-36-T-9935 belonging to the second respondent and insured with the third respondent, being driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, it met with an accident resulting in the death of the deceased. Respondents 1 and 2 chose to remain ex parte before the Tribunal and in this Court. Third respondent filed a counter. In support of their case, appellants examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A.l to A.20. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents but Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked by consent on its behalf. The Tribunal having held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto, passed an award for Rs.3,27,500/- in favour of the appellants against the respondents. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded to them, appellants preferred this appeal.

(2.) The point for consideration is to what compensation are the appellants entitled to?

(3.) Since the appellants i.e., claimants, are the father, brothers and sisters of the deceased, the age of the first appellant, but not the age of the deceased, that is relevant for fixing the relevant multiplier, because Petitioners 2 to 8 are not the legal heirs to the estate of the deceased, and first appellant alone is the heir to his estate as per schedule to Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (the Act), read with Section 8 of the Act, as father is in the first entry and brothers and sisters are in the second entry in Class n heirs shown in the schedule to the Act and since as per Section 9 of the Act, the first entry in Class n heirs shall be preferred to those in the second entry. That apart Appellants 2 to 8 cannot also be said to be dependants on the earnings of the deceased, because the full cause title of the claim petition shows that Appellants 2 to 5 are married sisters of the deceased and so they would be maintained by their respective husbands but not by the deceased. As far as Appellants 6 to 8 are concerned they are described as tailors and so it is clear that they are eking out their own livelihood by tailoring and so they cannot be said to be dependants on the deceased.