(1.) THESE two appeals - one by United India insurance Company Limited (insurer) and the other by dependents of the deceased (claimants) - are being disposed of by this common order, as it would be convenient to do so. The parties are referred to as they are arrayed in C. M. A. No. 1289 of 2004 (sic. Insurer's) (claimant's appeal ).
(2.) CHAKALI Narasimhulu, resident of julakal village in Kurnool District died in a motor accident on 15-11-2001 when he and three others were going in the lorry as labourers for loading groundnut. At about 7. 30 p. m. , lorry reached Kilometer stone no. 181/8 on N. H. 7, the lorry fell to left side. Chakali Narasimhulu died on the spot. His parents (respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein), his second wife (third respondent herein) and his son (minor son) through second wife filed m. V. O. P. No. 339 of 2002 claiming compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/- before the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l additional District Judge, Kurnool. It was alleged in the petition that Chakali narasimhulu had married Lakshmi Devi (sixth respondent herein) ten years prior to his death but never lived with her and he had no marital relationship with her. Subsequently, it was alleged that Lakshmi devi married one Maddileti, and Narasimhulu took Dargamma as his second wife. Due to this, it is alleged that Lakshmi Devi had no claim for compensation. It was also alleged that deceased was aged 25 years and was earning Rs. 100/- per day.
(3.) AS it generally happens in motor accident cases, the driver and the owner of the lorry remained ex parte. The first wife of the deceased also remained ex parte. The insurer contested the matter alleging that chakali Narasimhulu was non-fare paid gratuitous passenger travelling in the lorry and therefore, insurance policy is not required to cover the risk of deceased. They also disputed the quantum of compensation. Further, it is alleged that the accident vehicle had no valid permit, fitness certificate and valid insurance as on the date of accident.