VARDHANEEDI PONDU VENKATACHALA PRABHAKAR Vs. BUNGA SANTHI KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the order dated 19-10-1990 in OP No.201 of 1996 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru.

(2.) The respondents 1 to 4 (claimants) filed the OP against the appellants and respondents 5 to 9 and others seeking a compensation of Rs.60,000/- due to the death of Bunga Jayaraju (deceased) aged about 20 years earning Rs.800/- per month as driver, on the ground that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor with trailer bearing No.AAW 3294 and APW 7720, by the deceased 2nd respondent in the OP who is the husband of 5th respondent, and father of respondents 6 to 8 (hereinafter called the driver). Appellants were added as the legal representatives of the deceased first respondent in OP, the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, who died during the pendency of the OP before the Tribunal. Respondents 5 to 8 were added as legal representives of the deceased driver who also died during the pendency of the OP in the Tribunal. First appellant filed a counter putting the claimants to proof of the allegations in the petition. Respondents 5 to 8 filed a memo adopting the counter of the first appellant. 9th respondent filed a counter putting the claimants to proof of the averments in the petition, and admitting that the tractor, involved in the accident was insured with it. In support of their case the claimants have examined two witnesses as PWs.l and 2 and marked Exs.Al to A5. On behalf of the appellants the first appellant was examined as RW1, but no documentary evidence was adduced on their behalf. No evidence was adduced on behalf of respondents 5 to 8. On behalf of 9th respondent (insurer) no evidence either oral or documentary was adduced. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor by the driver and that the deceased and his brothers-in-law were travelling as gratuitous passengers in the tractor at the time of the accident, and that the claimants are entitled to Rs.60,000/- as compensation only from the first appellant and respondents 5 to 8, in their capacity as legal representatives of the deceased owner and driver of the tractor involved in the accident, and that the 9th respondent (insurer) is not liable to pay the compensation to the claimants and hence dismissed the claim against the 9th respondent. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the OP against the insurer respondents 3 to 5 in the Tribunal, who are the legal representatives of the deceased owner of the tractor preferred this appeal.

(3.) From the award passed by the Tribunal it is seen that though all the three appellants were initially added as legal representatives of the deceased first respondent in the OP as per order dated 5-4-1988 in IA No.302 of 1987, the claim against appellants 2 and 3 was given up on 11-9-1987 itself, and hence no award was passed against appellants 2 and 3 by the Tribunal. When the claim against them was given up and when no award was passed against appellants 2 and 3, why they are shown as parties to this appeal is not explained, when the estate of the deceased owner of the vehicle is sufficiently represented by the 1st appellant.