VANGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. CHELLU HANUMANTHA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above two appeals are filed under section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act. In eachof them the appellant is the Insurance Company. In thef irst of the appeals, the petitioner before the Accidents Claims Tribunal in O P. No. 84 of 1970 claimed Rs. 17,500/ as compensation consequent upon the death of one Chellu Subbarao, as a result of an accident that took place on 4th May, 1970 on the Vijayawada-Hyderabad Trunk Road when lorry A.P.T. No. 7676 beloging to the 1st respondent in the petition dashed against the cart in which he was travelling. The driver was impleaded as the 2nd respondent and the insurer was imupleaded as the 3rd respondent. Originally the petitioners were the mother and the foster-son of the deceased Subba Rao. Subsequently, during the pendency of the proceedings, the 1st petitioner (mother) died, and the 3rd petitioner was added as the legal representative of the deceased 1st petitioner. He is the brother of the deceased.

(2.) In the second of the appeals arising out of O..P No. 85 of 1970 on the file of the Tribunal, the respondents were the same as in the other original petition. This claim also arose out of the same accident, but in respect of death of one Shaik Meera Saheb, who also died by reason of the accident. The petitioners in this original petition are the wife, the minor son and the mother of the deceased Meera Saheb. The petitions in the lower Court were resisted by the respondents. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues-in both the petitions. In O.P. No. 84 of 1970 an Issue No. 1, which was common to both the petitions viz., whether the deceased died due to the alleged and negligent driving of the lorry No. 7676 by the driver, the Tribunal found in favour of the petitioners. On the ques- tion raised by Issue No. 2 in O.P. No. 84 of 1970, whether the petitioners were the heirs-at-law of the deceased, the Tribunal held that the 2nd petitioner, the foster-son, was not a dependent on the deceased and could not figure as a claimant in the petition. So far as the 3rd petitioner was concerned, it was held that he was entitled to compensation. In p.P.No. 84 of 1970, the mother, who claimed a sum of Rs. 9,000 as loss to her, died soon after the petition was filed and the claim regarding that Rs. 9,000 was given up. The particulars of the claim in O.P.No. 84 of 1970, were, Rs. 1,000 towards damages for strain and suffering of the deceased and Rs. 4,000 towards loss of expectation of the life of the deceased, Rs. 9,000 as loss to the 1st petitioner mother, (given up) and Rs. 3,500 as loss to the 3rd petitioner. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,000 as damages for the suffering of the deceased before he died. It further awarded Rs. 4,000 in a lumpsum directing the 3rd respondent, the insurer, to pay the amount.

(3.) In O.P. No. 85 of 1970, a sum of Rs. 32,500 was claimed Rs. 1,000 towards pain and suffering of the deceased before death, Rs. 4,000 for loss of expectation of life, Rs. 27,000 towards compensation lor loss to the petitioners and Rs. 500 for the loss of consortium to the wife of the deceased. It was held that the loss to her was Rs. 9,000. Then towards loss to the estate which was claimed in the original petition at Rs. 5,000, Rs. 1,000 towards compensation for pain and suffering and Rs. 4,000 for the loss of expectation of life of the deceased. The Tribunal had awarded Rs. 500 for pain and suffering of the deceased and Rs. 3,000 as compensation for the loss of expectation of the life of the deceased. These amounts were directed to be paid by the respondents. In C.M.A. No. 374 of 1972, a Memorandum of Cross-objections was filed by the respondents in the appeal.