THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3400 OF 2002 DATED: 02-12-2009 Between: The Regional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT And Varkala Manaiah & another. .....RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 10-04-2002, in O.P.No.151 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Medak, wherein the claim of the 1st respondent was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.97,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the petition. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant. None appeared for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. 1st respondent filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of the death of the deceased-K.Manemma, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 18/19-05-1998. The claimant is stated to be the brother of the deceased. According to the claimant, on that day, the deceased along with the marriage party was returning from Sadasivapet in a DCM van bearing No.AP 12 T 7908 to Sangareddy and when the vehicle reached the outskirts of Sadasivapet, a Container Carrier bearing No.MH 04F 2803 coming in the opposite direction, driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, dashed against the DCM van as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries and subsequently died while undergoing treatment in the hospital. It is stated that four other persons died on the spot and two persons, who sustained injuries, died in Government hospital, Sangareddy. A case in Cr.No.82 of 1998 was registered by the police against the driver of the said Carrier. It is pleaded that the deceased was doing tailoring work at Rajampet village and earning Rs.2000/- per month. According to the claimant, the deceased was staying in his house ever since the death of her husband since a long time. 4. The owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte. The appellant-insurer filed counter opposing the claim and denying the liability to pay the compensation and further contending that the claimant is not entitled to receive any compensation for the death of his sister. 5. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to 6 were marked on behalf of the claimant. R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 was marked on behalf of the appellant-insurer. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Carrier by its driver. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.97,000/-. 7. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the claimant is not depending on his deceased-sister and therefore he is not entitled to claim any compensation. The Tribunal awarded compensation in favour of the claimant only on the ground that the claimant is also a legal heir of the deceased, within the meaning of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ( for brevity, ‘the Act’). It is to be noted that the claimant is having his own job as a hotel Watchman and therefore he was having his own income. On the other hand, the deceased, who lost her husband long back, has been taking shelter in the house of the claimant and therefore it is a case where the deceased was virtually depending on her brother-claimant, having lost her husband. There is nothing on record to show that the claimant was in any way depending on the income of the deceased for his livelihood. May be the claimant is a Class-II legal heir of the deceased within the meaning of the Act, but still he has to establish that he was depending on the deceased and on account of the death of the deceased in the accident there has been loss of dependency sustained by the claimant. There is absolutely no evidence adduced in that regard. 8. In a recent decision in SESHAPU RAMULAMMA v. DOPPALAPUDI RAJU AND OTHERS, this Court, after discussing the case law on the subject, held as follows: “The conspectus of the legal provisions and the case law would show that though married daughter, unmarried daughter, married sister and unmarried sister, brother, nephew all come in the category of legal representatives, all of them would not be entitled to a share in the compensation awarded under the Act. Shafiya ( 1 supra) is a case wherein this Court held that a married sister would not be entitled to claim any compensation though she may be legal representative. The view of the Division Bench is binding on this Court and in the considered opinion of this Court, the definition of ‘legal representative’ in Section 2(g) of the Rules read with Section 2(11) CPC does not make any difference in the interpretation of the term ‘legal representative’ for the purpose of 1988 Act. Learned Tribunal has correctly applied the principle and therefore, no necessity arises for interference”. 9. In view of the principles laid down in the above decisions and applying the same to the facts of the present case, it must be held that the claimant, not being a dependant, a legal representative of the deceased, is not entitled to claim compensation for the death of the deceased. The award passed by the Tribunal is therefore not sustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. Insofar as the appellant is concerned, as per the interim order, dated 03-10-2002, the entire amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal has already been deposited by the appellant and the claimant was permitted to withdraw half of the deposited amount, without furnishing any security. Having regard to the fact that the claimant is a poor and low-paid workman and that it may cause hardship for him to repay the amount already withdrawn at this length of time, it is held that the amount already withdrawn by the claimant may not be recovered from him. The appellant-insurer is held entitled for refund of the balance amount lying in the deposit. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed subject to the direction stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 02nd December, 2009 Tsy