Sundaramma Vs. D. Suneetha & Ors.  INSC 249 (9 February 2009)
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2009 (Arising out of
SLP (C) No. 21324 of 2007) D. Shanmukha Sundaramma ....Appellant Versus D.
Suneeetha and Ors. ....Respondents
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT,
learned counsel for the appellant.
appears on behalf of the respondents in spite of service of notice.
in these appeals is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court.
background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
One Sudhakar Rao
(hereinafter referred to as the `deceased') lost his life in a vehicular
accident on 13.11.1998. He was an Auto-driver who was driving Auto Rickshaw
No.AP 26 6164. A lorry bearing No. ATC-1035 dashed against the auto rickshaw
resulting in the death of the deceased. The claimant filed a claim petition
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. A sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was
claimed as compensation by respondent No.1 who is the widow of the deceased. One
E. Lokanadham Naidu was the owner of the offending vehicle. In the claim
petition, the owner as well as M/s United India Insurance Company Ltd.
(hereinafter referred to as the `insurer') were impleaded as parties along with
the present appellant, who is the mother of the deceased. It was indicated in
the claim petition that both the claimant and the present appellant were
entitled to compensation.
Appellant filed a
counter affidavit before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, cum-IVth
Additional District Judge, Tirupathi (hereinafter
referred to as
`MACT') taking the stand that after the death of the deceased the claimant had
deserted her and was not looking after her welfare and, therefore, she was also
entitled to compensation in equal measure along with the claimant. The MACT, by
award dated 21.8.2000 in O.P. No.101 of 1999 awarded compensation of
Rs.3,40,068/- along with 12% interest. Costs were also awarded. The MACT
directed that the amount should be
paid equally to the
claimant and the present appellant. Any amount paid under Section 140 of the
Act was to be adjusted from the amount payable on the basis of the award. The
matter was challenged in appeal by the claimant.
Basic question was
whether the Tribunal was justified in directing equal opportunity. The present
appellant took the stand that the claimant was engaged as a Home guard and that
she was living separately. But she denied the stand that she was getting
Rs.80/- per day. It was stated that she was receiving much less. The appellant's
stand was that she was solely dependant for her livelihood on the earning of
her son. The High Court was of the view that the claimant was hardly 20 years
of age and, therefore, a sum of Rs.50,000/- was directed to be paid to the
present appellant and the balance to the claimant widow.
counsel for the appellant submitted that the approach of the High Court is
is pointed out that total amount deposited by the Insurance Company is
Rs.4,22,438/-. On the basis of the High Court's order, both the appellant and
the widow of the deceased have withdrawn one fourth amount each. The insurer
has filed an affidavit indicating that it has no role on the question of
apportionment which has to be decided by the court. In any event, the interest
as awarded, is much higher than what is normally awarded.
of the claimant before the MACT and the High Court appears to be that the
present appellant is being maintained by her son, but she has no one to depend
there appears to be some substance in the plea of the insurer regarding the
rate of interest, in the absence of any appeal by it, there is no scope for
interfering with the rate. Had there been any appeal, there would be certainly
scope for interference.
only issue in the present appeal is the amount to which the present appellant
i.e. the mother of the deceased would be entitled.
peculiar facts of the case, the age of the widow and that of the present
appellant, we think it would be appropriate to grant a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh and Twenty Five Thousand only) to the appellant and the
balance to the claimant-wife i.e. the widow of the deceased.
appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent without any order as to costs.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)