UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SAKHAMURI VENKAYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This M.A.C.M.A. is filed by the insurer challenging the order, dated 31.12.1999, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ongole in O.P.No.365 of 1993. Respondents 1 to 3 filed the O.P. claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of the death of late Ganapathi. It was pleaded that Ganapathi was resident of Vemavaram village and on 31.03.1993 he died in an accident involving a tractor bearing No.AAG 9980 owned by the fourth respondent and insured with the appellant. It was pleaded that the deceased was aged about 40 years at the time of accident and that he was earning a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month out of agriculture. The O.P. was opposed by the appellant on several grounds. The owner of the vehicle died during pendency of the O.P. His legal representatives, respondents 5 and 6 herein, were brought on record. Through the order under appeal, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest at 12% per annum and apportioned the same among respondents 1 to 3.

(2.) Sri G.Purushotham Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the O.P. had abated on account of the death of the owner of the vehicle, particularly when the Tribunal recorded a finding to the effect that respondents 5 and 6 are not the legal representatives of the deceased fourth respondent. He further contends that the driver of the vehicle did not possess proper licence and in that view of the matter, the appellant ought not to have been held liable to pay the compensation. Sri M.S.N.Prasad, the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3, on the other hand, submits that the O.P. did not abate on account of the death of the owner of the vehicle in view of Section 155 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act'). He further contends that the legal representatives of the owner of the vehicle have been brought on record and it is a different thing as to whether they have succeeded to the estate at all. It is also pointed out that the driver of the vehicle was neither identified nor examined as a witness and in such an event, there was no basis for adducing any evidence in relation to an un-known person. Two contentions are urged before this Court on behalf of the appellant. The first is as to whether the O.P. did not abate on account of the death of the owner of the vehicle i.e. the fourth respondent herein and the second is as to whether the liability of the appellant does not cease on account of the fact that the driver of the vehicle did not posses valid driving licence.

(3.) So far as the first aspect is concerned, soon after coming to know the fact that the owner of the vehicle died, respondents 1 to 3 have filed an application to bring respondents 5 and 6 as legal representatives. They are the daughter and grand-daughter of the deceased fourth respondent. It is true that the Tribunal recorded a finding to the effect that respondents 5 and 6 did not succeed to the estate of the deceased fourth respondent. That, however, besides the issue. The Tribunal was not deciding the entitlement of succession. Impleadment of respondents 5 and 6 are only to continue the proceedings vis-a-vis the estate of the deceased. At any rate, Section 155 of the Act directs that the death of an insured does not bring about abatement of the proceedings. A Division Bench of this Court in R.KAMALA v SHAIK MOHD.GHOUSE 2004(2) ALT 8 (DB) took note of the same and held that the non-participation of the owner of the vehicle or his legal representatives does not vitiate the proceedings.