IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1756 & 1885 OF 2008 M.A.C.M.A.No.1756 OF 2008 Between:- Kathula Janakamma and another …Appellants A n d Guthula Srinivasa Rao and 7 others …Respondents A N D M.A.C.M.A.No.1885 OF 2008 Between:- Kathula Janakamma …Appellant A n d Kathula Karunamma @ Karuna and 5 others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1756 & 1885 OF 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT: These two appeals arise out of the common order dated 10-09-2007 in O.P.Nos.792 & 745 of 2002, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-II Additional District Judge, West Godavari, at Eluru, wherein O.P.No.792 of 2002 filed by the appellants in M.A.C.M.A.No.1756 of 2008 for compensation was allowed-in-part, awarding an amount of Rs.1,22,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. O.P.No.745 of 2002 filed by respondents 1 to 3 in M.A.C.M.A.No.1885 of 2008 was allowed-in-part, awarding compensation of Rs.1,98,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. 2. M.A.C.M.A.No.1756 of 2008 is filed against the award passed in O.P.No.792 of 2002 and M.A.C.M.A.No.1885 of 2008 is directed against the award passed in O.P.No.745 of 2002. As both appeals arise out common order and are interrelated, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. Heard the learned counsel for both parties in both appeals. Perused the records. 4. Kathula Karunamma, the first claimant in O.P.No.745 of 2002 is the wife and Kathula Mounika, the second claimant, is the daughter of the deceased Kathula Yesupadam, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 09-03-2002. Kathula Praneeth, the third claimant in O.P.No.745 of 2002, is stated to be the son of the deceased and is also claimed to be his legal heir. Kathula Janakamma, who is the mother of the deceased, originally filed O.P.No.792 of 2002. Subsequently, Kathula Ganga, sister of the deceased, was impleaded as second petitioner. The wife and children, who are claimants in O.P.No.745 of 2002, are also impleaded as respondents 6 to 8 in O.P.No.792 of 2002. 5. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged 25 years and was working as a driver of the car bearing No.DL IY 3362 and was earning not less than Rs.4,000/- per month. On 09-03-2002, when the deceased was proceeding in the car, a lorry tanker bearing AP 31 U 2767 came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the car of the deceased on NH-5 road near Pulla Bridge, as a result of which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died while undergoing treatment in Government hospital. A case in Cr.No.28 of 2002 was registered by Bheemdole P.S against the driver of the lorry. 6. The driver and owner of the lorry tanker and the owner of the car remained ex parte. The insurer of the lorry tanker filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay compensation. 7. On the strength of the above pleadings, the tribunal framed the following issues: O.P.No.792 of 2002 i) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AP 31 U 2767 by its driver-1st respondent and dashed agianst the car bearing No.DL IY 3362 driven by the deceased himself? ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and against which of the respondents? iii) To what relief the parties are entitled? O.P.No.745 of 2002 i) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tanker bearing No.AP 31 U 2767 by its driver-1st respondent and dashed agianst the car bearing No.DL IY 3362? ii) Whether the petitioner are entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and against which of the respondents? iii) To what relief the parties are entitled? 8. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked on behalf of the claimants. R.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B- 8 were marked on behalf of the respondents before the tribunal. Ex.X-1 was also marked. 9. 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 lorry bearing No.AP 31 2767 by its driver. The said finding is not under challenge. The tribunal further held that the claimants in O.P.No.745 of 2002, the wife and two children are entitled for a compensation of Rs.1,98,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum and the wife shall be entitled for a sum of Rs.76,000/- and the two children Rs.61,000/- each. The tribunal also held that the claimants in O.P.No.745 of 2002, mother and sister of the deceased were entitled for a sum of Rs.1,22,000/- and they shall take the same in equal shares. Aggrieved by the said awards, the mother of the deceased filed MACMA.No.1885 of 2008 and the mother and sister of the deceased filed MACMA.No.1756 of 2008. 10. The only contention raised by the learned counsel is that in view of divorce between the deceased and his wife Karunamma, as can be seen from Ex.A-6, the wife and children are not entitled for compensation. Regarding the claim of wife and the two children, the tribunal held as follows:- “There is no strict proof to show that the marriage was dissolved between the deceased-Yesupadam and his wife Karunamma and further there is no strict proof to show that R-7 and R-8 are not the children of the deceased Yesupadam. In view of the evidence of R.Ws.2 and 3 and Exs.B-4 to B-7, the deceased Yesupadam and Karunamma lived together as husband and wife till the death of deceased Yesupadam.” 11. The mother of the deceased contends that there has been a divorce between the deceased and his wife by virtue of the award Ex.A-6 passed before the Lok Adalath in O.P.No.10 of 2000. The wife contends that the said award was obtained by playing fraud on her and by obtaining her signatures on some papers by misrepresentation by her husband, as he developed illicit intimacy with his niece with the support of his mother. The question as to whether or not the award Ex.A-6 passed by the Lok Adalath in O.P.No.10 of 2000 is vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation, does not arise for consideration in the present proceedings. The fact remains that the award Ex.A-6 passed before the Lok Adalath in O.P.No.10 of 2000, dissolving the marriage between the deceased and his wife, continues to be in force and the same is not set aside so far. When that is so, the first claimant in O.P.No.745 of 2002 i.e., Kathula Karunamma’s legal status is that of a divorced wife as on the date of the accident. The accident took place on 09-03-2002, whereas the award before the Lok Adalath was passed on 01-04- 2000. The divorced wife is certainly entitled for maintenance till she gets re-married. It is not the case of the appellants that the wife of the deceased got re-married. The wife of the deceased is, therefore, entitled for compensation towards loss of dependency as she was having right to claim maintenance against the husband had he been alive. She is, however, not entitled for any compensation towards loss of consortium awarded in a sum of Rs.15,000/-. Mounika, the daughter of the deceased, was aged 3 years by the date of filing of the claim application and it is stated that she was born shortly before the grant of divorce. The daughter is, therefore, entitled for maintenance as legal heir. Insofar as the son Pranith is concerned, as per Ex.B-6 birth certificate, he was born in 2002 long subsequent to the grant of divorce. 12. The tribunal relying on the certificate Ex.B-7 issued by Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, held that the deceased and his wife Karunamma were residing together as husband and wife till the death of the deceased. The legal status of the parties cannot be decided on the basis of the certificate-Ex.B-7 issued by Sarpanch, especially in the light of the award passed by the Lok Adalath in O.P.No.10 of 2000, dissolving the marriage. Of course, the wife disputes the validity of the said award, but the said aspect cannot be gone into in this proceeding. It is open to the wife Karunamma to seek appropriate remedies under law in that regard. As the boy Pranith was born long after the grant of divorce, he is not entitled to claim any share in the compensation, as a legal heir of the deceased, till his legal heirship to the deceased is established in appropriate proceedings before a competent court. The amount of Rs.61,000/- awarded to the son Pranith is, therefore, directed to be apportioned among Karunamma, the first claimant, and Mounika, the second claimant in O.P.No.742 of 2002, equally. The amount of Rs.15,000/- awarded to the first claimant by way of loss of consortium shall be awarded to the daughter Mounika towards loss of love and affection. 13. The impugned awards are modified accordingly. 14. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeals are disposed of as stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 27th July 2010 Lrkm.