AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Abdul Nazeer, J.—The appellants filed MVC No. 125/1995 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, D.K., Mangalore, seeking compensation on account of the death of Smt. Estephin D''Souza in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 19.11.1994. The first appellant is the niece of the deceased and appellant Nos. 2 to 5 are her daughters. The respondent-Insurance Company has entered appearance and filed its objections. The tribunal has framed relevant issues on the basis of the pleadings. The Tribunal has held that the accident had occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motor cycle. It has determined the compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,01,000/-. However, the Tribunal by its judgment and award dated 12.11.2002 has dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the claimants/appellants have failed to establish their relationship with the deceased or loss of dependency. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have filed this appeal challenging the said judgment and award.
Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the first appellant is the niece of the deceased. Appellant Nos. 2 to 5 are her daughters. It is further submitted that the appellants have filed survivorship certificate along with an application - I.A. No. 1/2013. It is further contended that there is no denial of the fact that appellant Nos. 2 to 5 are the daughters of the deceased. The ration card at Ex. P7 would also disclose the relationship of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 with the deceased. In the circumstances, the Tribunal is not justified in holding that there is no relationship between the appellants/claimants and the deceased. He has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Smt. Manjuri Bera Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Another, in support of his contention that a claim petition by a married daughter cannot be rejected on the ground that she is not dependent on the deceased.
On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company has sought to justify the impugned judgment and award.
I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned Counsel made at the Bar and perused the materials placed on record.
The first appellant/claimant was examined as P.W. 1. In her evidence, she has stated that the deceased was residing with her since her daughters were employed at Bombay during the relevant point of time. She was earning Rs. 400/- per day and contributing Rs. 200/- per day to her family. A suggestion was put to her in the cross-examination that she was not related to the deceased. However, there is no denial of the fact that appellant Nos. 2 to 5 are the daughters of the deceased. Appellant No. 2 was examined as P.W. 3. She has categorically stated that she and other appellant Nos. 3 to 5 are the daughters of the deceased. Nothing worthwhile has been established in her cross-examination. The ration card at Ex. P7 would also disclose that appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are the daughters of the deceased.
Apart from the above, the documents produced along with I.A. No. 1/2013, namely, the survivorship certificate issued by the Tahsildar also certifies that appellant Nos. 2 to 5 are the daughters of the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal is not justified in holding that there is no relationship between the appellants and the deceased.
In Smt. Manjuri Bera''s case (supra), the Apex Court has held that the claim petition filed by a married daughter of a motor accident victim is maintainable. She cannot be denied compensation on ground that she is not dependant on deceased.
In the instant case, though the daughters of the deceased are residing at Mumbai, it cannot be said that they are not entitled for compensation. There is no bar for them to file a claim petition having regard to Section 166(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In my view, the Tribunal is not justified in dismissing the claim petition after determining the compensation. In the result, the appeal succeeds and it is accordingly allowed. The judgment and award of the Tribunal in MVC No. 125/1995 dated 12.11.2002 dismissing the claim petition on the ground that there is no relationship or dependency between the deceased and the claimants is hereby set aside. The claim petition is allowed. The respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation determined by the Tribunal in a sum of Rs. 1,01,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The appellant Nos. 2 to 5 are permitted to withdraw the amount on its deposit in equal proportion. No costs.