NYLAPALLY NARAYANA Vs. BRAHMANAPALLY SAROJINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these revisions, common questions of law and fact arise for consideration; therefore, they are being disposed of by this common Order: Petitioner and respondents are common in all the revisions. It appears that the husband of the 1st respondent (late B.Ramulu) obtained hand loans com the petitioner herein by'way. of executing promissory notes. The husband of the 1st respondent died in a motor accident. However on the basis of the said promissory notes suits were laid against the respondents and they were decreed. In the meanwhile, O.P.No.443 c.f 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad filed by the respondents claiming compensation for the death of late Ramulu was allowed and an Award was passed for Rs.6,50,000/- along with interest thereon. Since the suits were decreed, the petitioner filed Execution Petitions and sought for attachment of the amount awarded in O.P.No.443 of 2001, but they were rejected by a docket Order dated 31-8-2005, which reads as under:

(2.) Aggrievtd by the said Order, the present Civil Revision Petitions are filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the amount lying to the credit of O.P.No.443 of 2001 falls under the lestate of the deceased' and it was not granted for the benefit of the legal heirs of the deceased i.e. the respondents; therefore, it can be attached. Thus, the only question that falls for consideration, in all these revisions, is whether the amount of compensation awarded in respect of the respondents in O.P.No.443 of 2001 can be called as 'estate of the deceased' and the same can be subjected to execution proceedings i.e. for attachment etc. Learned counsel also contended that there is no distinction between loss of estate' and loss of dependency' when the persons claiming are one and the same. In this regard, he sought to make a comparison of the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act and the Motor Vehicles Act and submitted that the loss of dependency under the Motor Vehicles Act is nothing but loss of estate as contemplated under the Fatal Accidents Art and they are words, synonymous in nature. Therefore, a purposive interpretation should be given to these words. In support of his contention he relied upon the Judgments reported in GOBALD MOTOR SERVICE v. VELUSWAMI, AIR 1962 SC 1 and CHADALAVADA GAYATHRI v. TALLAPANENI NARAYYA, 1995(1) ALT 618.

(3.) In GOBALD MOTOR SERVICE (1 supra) the Apex Court observed as under: 11. The principle in its application to the Indian Act has beet clearly and succinctly stated by a (Division Bench of the Lahore High Court in Secretary of State v. Gdkal Chand, ILR 6 Lah 451: (AIR 1925 Lah 636). In that case, Sir Shadi Lal, C. J., observed at p. 453 (of ILR Lah.) : (at p. 636 of AIR) thus: