SESHAPU RAMULAMMA Vs. DOPPALAPUDI RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER a married sister can maintain a petition under Section 166 of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act, for brevity) is the short but interesting question that falls for consideration in this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Act. Before addressing the question, brief background of the case may be noticed.

(2.) TADIVADA Bangarappadu aged about 50 years at the relevant time was a member of Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituency. He was also fair price shop dealer statedly earning Rs. 2,500/- per month. On 18. 05. 1996 at 10. 45 am while going towards Srikakulam side on his luna, at a place near petrol bunk, pusapatirega, a lorry bearing No. AP 12 T 4419 driven by first respondent dashed against him, resulting in instantaneous death of Bangarappadu.

(3.) SMT. Seshapu Ramulamma - appellant herein who is aged about 55 years filed o. P. No. 327 of 1996 before the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, vizinagaram. She claimed that she is sister of deceased and that she is lone surviving legal representative entitled to the estate and compensation that may be awarded under the Act. As it generally happens, driver and owner of offending vehicle remained ex parte. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, third respondent herein, opposed OP denying the right of appellant to claim compensation as legal heir. Relevant to the two issues framed, appellant let in evidence - oral evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 and documentary evidence of Exs. A1 to a4. Ex. B1 copy of insurance policy was marked. On the question of negligence the point was held in favour of appellant. However, on the question of entitlement and quantum, learned Tribunal while placing reliance on A. P. S. R. T. C. Corpn. v shafiya Khatoon1 wherein it was held that a married sister is not entitled to maintain a petition under Section 166 of the Act as she cannot be considered a dependent legal heir, OP was dismissed, aggrieved by which instant appeal is filed.