RAYUDU SEHSARATNAM Vs. P.S.RAMARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimants 5 in number claiming as fathers second wife, sisters and brothers(all majors) of deceased Nagarjunarao shown aged about 25 years even as per the Ex.A.2 P.M. report and as per the P.W.1 evidence, preferred the claim against the driver, owner and insurer of the lorry bearing No.AP9 T 2500 under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, claiming Rs.2,74,000/- in O.P.No.475 of 2006 on the file of the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims TribunalcumIII Additional Judge, Kakinada (for short, Tribunal) and the tribunal by award dated 30.07.2007 awarded compensation of Rs.75,000/- with interest at 7.5% with observation that all the claimants shown as coolies as earnings members not dependants on the deceased and even remote heirs and the father of the deceased no other than the so called husband of the 1st claimant through second marriage shown as alive not impleading thereby awarding of Rs.75,000/- is just. It is impugning the same they preferred the appeal even without impleading father of the deceased as co-respondent at least to the appeal, with contentions in the grounds of appeal that the award of the tribunal is contrary to law, that the tribunal should have seen that the 1st claimant is second wife of father (Pothuraju) of deceased (Nagarjunarao), that the tribunal should have considered the earnings of the deceased as driver of proclainer at Rs.4,500/-, thereby sought for allowing the appeal as claimed before the tribunal by enhancing the compensation. The learned counsel for the appellants reiterated the same during the course of hearing.

(2.) It is important to note that in the course of hearing of the appeal earlier in part this Court within power under Order X Rule 2, Order I Rule 10(2) CPC impleaded the father of the deceased as he is the class-II legal heir of the deceased and dependant on the deceased for the claimants are not therefrom as 4th respondent to the appeal and even notice served by the insurer at the direction of the Court, the notice is unclaimed by him and did not choose to appear that also indicates that he is alive. It is not even the case of the 1st claimant-so called wife of the said Pothuraju (father of the deceased) that the whereabouts of the Pothuraju are not known or not residing with her so also of the other claimants the major brothers and sisters of the deceased.

(3.) From the above, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the insurer (for the owner and driver of the vehicle did not choose to appear in the appeal but taken as heard to decide on merits) that Pothuraju-father of the deceased as dependant is entitled to compensation and the tribunal rightly awarded the quantum of Rs.75,000/-. Hence, to dismiss the appeal.