KOMMURU RAMA MOHANARAO Vs. V KANAKA DURGAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First appellant and K.Hema Kumari filed a claim petition under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) alleging that when Kommuru Suryanarayana (hereinafter called the deceased), was proceeding in a rickshaw along with K.Srinivasarao and reached near Social Welfare Hostel in Kavuru village, a lorry belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, being driven in a rash . and negligent manner dashed against the rickshaw resulting in grievous injuries to the deceased and so he was admitted in the hospital and died while undergoing treatment. The deceased was working as a clerk iin a rice-mill and was earning Rs.1,000/- per month. First appellant, Ram Mohan Rao, his paternal uncle and Hema Kumari his widow were entirely depending on his earnings and so they are entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from respondents 1 and 2. Hema Kurmari died during the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal and so appellants 2 to 4 were brought on record as her legal representatives as respondents 3 to 5 in the claim petition.

(2.) Respondents 1 and 2 who appeared through the same counsel filed the counter of the second respondent putting the claimants to proof of the averments in the claim petition and that counter was adopted by the first respondent. Second appellant who was brought on record as the 3rd respondent in the claim petition filed his counter contending that he and appellants 3 and 4 also are entitled to compensation equally along with the first appellant.

(3.) On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed six issues for trial. In support of their claim, appellants examined two witnesses as P.Ws.l and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.3. Second appellant examined himself as R.W.1. Respondents 1 and 2 did not adduce any evidence either oral or documentary. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry belonging to the first respondent and without giving a finding on the quantum of compensation payable held that as none of the appellants can be said to be the legal representatives of the deceased, dismissed the claim petition. Hence this appeal.