GOLEPU CHANDRAMOULI Vs. G SREESAILAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unfortunate death of one Golepu Shiva Kumar and his minor son, by name Uma Shankar, gave raise to filing of several claim petitions by different parties, obviously, under the imperfect advise tendered by the legal practitioners concerned, and ultimately had resulted in denial of compensation.

(2.) The relevant facts may briefly be stated as under: Appellants 1 and 2 are the parents, 3rd appellant is the wife and appellants 4 and 5 are the children of Golepu Shiva Kumar. While Shiva Kumar and his family members were travelling in an Ambassador Car bearing No.ADL 8510, owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, on 06.07.1997, it met with an accident at the early hours. Shiva Kumar and his minor son-Uma Shankar died. The third appellant filed O.P.Nos.719 and 720 of 1997 under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Kadapa, for payment of compensation under 'no fault liability', on account of the death of her minor son and husband. While O.P.No.720 of 1997 was allowed on 19.02.1998 and a sum of Rs.50,000/- was awarded as compensation, O.P.No.719 of 1997 was dismissed. The second respondent, the insurer, filed C.M.A.No.2359 of 2000 against the order and decree in O.P.No.720 of 1997.

(3.) All the appellants herein filed O.P.No.556 of 1997, under Section 166 of the Act, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Mahaboobnagar, claiming compensation, on account of the death of late Shiva Kumar. Before the same Tribunal, the third appellant filed O.P.No.523 of 1997 under Section 140 of the Act, for compensation, on account of the death of her minor son. This O.P. was nothing but the replication of O.P.No.719 of 1997 on the file of the Tribunal at Kadapa. The Tribunal at Mahaboobnagar dismissed O.P.No.523 and 556 of 1.997, through its judgment, dated 13.07.2004. This C.M.A. is directed against the dismissal of O.P.No.556 of 1997. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents.