IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH
C.M.A.No.2501 of 2002
Between:
Ganta Lakshmi Kanthamma and another ..... APPELLANTS AND Ganta Uma Devi and 3 others . RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH
C.M.A.No.2501 of 2002
JUDGMENT:
The appellants are the parents of the deceased. During pendency of the appeal, the 2nd appellant who is father of the deceased died and the 1st appellant was declared as legal representative of the 2nd appellant.
2. This appeal is filed with regard to incorrect apportionment of the awarded compensation contending that due to the death of the son of the appellants, the wife of the deceased and minor daughter filed M.V.O.P.10851/1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-I Additional District Judge, Guntur and the Tribunal below awarded compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-. Out of which, the wife was given an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and the daughter was given an amount of Rs.80,000/- whereas the parents were given Rs.10,000/- each alone. It is stated that the appellants were depending on the income of the deceased son only and therefore, the Tribunal below ought to have awarded at least 2/5th of the compensation amount in favour of the parents.
3. In so far as the contention of the appellants is concerned it is to be seen that the appellants herein filed a counter before the Tribunal stating that they being the parents of the deceased, they are solely depending on the earnings of the deceased son and they have no other source of income for their livelihood. After the death of their son, Respondents Nos.1 and 2 herein sent them out of their house, and at present they are living in their daughter’s house at Pedakakani village.
4. The father of the deceased was examined as RW 1 and he stated that after the death of their son in the motor vehicle accident he stayed with the 1st respondent herein till the obsequies of the deceased son was over and thereafter the 1st respondent asked him to go away from her house and therefore, the parents of the deceased went to Kakani where their daughter was residing. They used to reside in the house of their son during his lifetime and the deceased son used to look after their needs. In the cross examination, RW 1 stated that they have got another son also, but he is not doing any business and he used to reside in the house of the deceased only during his lifetime.
5. The Court below did not take into consideration the status of the parents while apportioning the awarded compensation. There is evidence to show that the parents used to depend upon the earnings of the deceased and used to live with him during his lifetime. It is stated that after the death of the deceased the 1st petitioner asked them to go out from the house and therefore they are living in their daughter’s house.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion the Court below ought to have granted at least Rs.20,000/- each to the parents, totaling Rs.40,000/- out of awarded compensation. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to award an amount @Rs.20,000/- each to the appellants out of the total compensation amount along with interest accrued thereon by reducing the apportionment of amount awarded to the 1st respondent from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.1,40,000/- and from Rs.80,000/- to Rs.70,000/- in respect of the 2nd respondent. During pendency of appeal as the 2nd appellant died, the 1st appellant who was declared as legal representative of the 2nd appellant is entitled to receive the enhanced amount along with interest accrued thereon on behalf of 2nd appellant also.
7. The appeal is allowed in part, to the extent as indicated above. No order as to costs.
V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 24.06.2010 Dsr