GUBBALA SUBHADRA Vs. S. APPA RAO AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a claim petition filed by the appellant herein claiming to be the widow of one Gubbala Nookaraju who died in a motor accident by being run over by the lorry bearing No. APP 5235 at Jaggampet Junction. The 1st respondent herein is the owner of the vehicle, the 2nd respondent is the insurance company and the 3rd respondent is the driver of the vehicle. One K. Papa Rao who was originally impleaded as the driver of the vehicle was subsequently given up. The learned II Additional District Judge (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Rajahmundry holding that the petitioner in the claim petition is not proved to be the wife of the deceased and as such she is not the legal heir of the deceased and that the claim petitioner has failed to prove that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry on 14.6.1979, dismissed the claim petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant herein claimed compensation of Rs. 20,000.00 towards loss of support, Rs. 10,000.00 towards loss of consortium and Rs. 5,000.00 for pain and suffering, that the reasons given by the lower Tribunal for dismissing the claim petition are not at all sound, that the findings of the lower Tribunal deserve to be reversed on both the issues, that it is quite improbable for a young woman to come forward and claim to be the wife of the deceased and that when. in respect of the same accident compensation was awarded to the parents of the deceased, it cannot be said that there was no negligence. He further submitted that PW 2's evidence is quite cogent and consistent to establish negligence and that the appellant is entitled for compensation claimed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-insurance company, on the other hand, argued that it is the duty of all the claimants to file a single O.P., that the appellant did not satisfactorily prove that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased, that she did not even examine her mother who is said to have performed the marriage, that there is no other independent evidence regarding the marriage and that the finding of the lower Tribunal that there is no proof of negligence on the part of the driver is quite correct because the claimant is not even aware as to the correct date of the accident.