NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. P. MOHALAXMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) P . Mohalaxmi (Respondent No. 1), widow of P. Papayya, for herself and on behalf of her minor children Respondent Nos. 2 to 5, filed an application under Section 110 -A of the M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs. 20,000/ - on account of the death of her husband in a motor vehicle accident before the Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Her case before the Tribunal was that her husband P. Papayya on the evening of 28.12.73 was returning to his village by a public bus A.P.S. 1909 while P. Papayya was getting down from the bus after it stopped near his village, the driver of the vehicle suddenly started the bus without getting any indication either from the cleaner or from the conductor before P. Papayya had got down. As a result of this, P. Papayya fell down and the vehicle ran over him causing multiple injuries which ultimately resulted in his death the very same day. According to the claimant, her husband was earning about Rs. 180/ - per month and with this earning he was maintaining his wife and children. By the death of P. Papayya the claimant was entitled to compensation of Rs. 20,000/ -.

(2.) TO the claim petition of Respondent No. 1, the owner of the bus B. Krishna Rao, the insurer and also the driver of the bus were impleaded as opposite parties and notice of the claim was served on them. After notice the owner and the driver filed a joint written statement and the insurer filed a separate one before the Claims Tribunal denying the material allegation of the claim petition. According to the the owner of the bus, the driver and the insurer, P. Payayya, did not meet with his death in the accident as alleged by the claimant. The aforesaid opposite parties also denied the status of P. Mohalaxmi. It was, however, admitted by the opposite parties in their written statement that at the relevant time and the place the bus in question stopped and that a lame man got down from the bus. According to the O. Ps the lame man was standing on the road after getting down from the bus while the bus left the place.

(3.) I shall first of all take up the cross objections filed by the claimants in each of the appeals. The relationship of P. Papayya with P. Mohalaxmi and her children is not denied before me. The case of the claimant in these cross objections is the same. According to the claimants, the finding of the Tribunal that P. Papayya was earning Rs 4/ - per day that out of the said sum of Rs. 4/ - he was spending Rs. 2/ - on tobacco and tea and that he was only spending Rs. 50/ - per month for the maintenance of his family are contrary to evidence on record. This contention of Mr. Murty, learned Counsel for the claimants, is bound to prevail. P.W. 1 the widow of P. Papayya has deposed in her evidence that the monthly income of her husband was Rs. 180/ -, to Rs. 200/ -. This evidence of P. W. 1 is corroborated by P. Ws. 2 and 3. The Appellant in the two appeals although examined as many as 4 witnesses before the Tribunal have not led any evidence regarding the income of P. Papayya. In these circumstances it must be said that there is no justification for the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that P. Papayya was spending only Rs. 50/ - per month for the maintenance of his family, his income being Rs. 4/ - per day.