IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU C.M.A.No.3691 of 2003 DATE:09.12.2010 Between: Vankudoth Lalya and another …… Appellants And A.P.S.R.T.C. rep. By its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. …..Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU C.M.A.No.3691 of 2003 JUDGMENT: The appellants are parents of the deceased Vankdoth Renuka who died in road accident when A.P.S.R.T.C bus bearing No.AEZ 4446 was driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner. There is no dispute about the said facts. The motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Warangal in O.P.No.349 of 2001 by award dated 27.06.2003 dismissed claim petition of the appellants on the ground that they are not entitled for any further compensation as they have received Rs.50,000/- from A.P.S.R.T.C in full and final settlement of their claim for death of their daughter, under Ex.B-1 receipt and Ex.B-2 indemnity bond. 2) It is contended by the appellants’ counsel that assuming for the sake of argument that the appellants have received Rs.50,000/- towards full and final settlement of death claim relating to their daughter, even then the appellants are entitled to file the claim petition before the lower Tribunal and claim just compensation. He placed reliance on Division Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Kunjamma Mathai V. Marcelo Fernandes[1] in support of his contention. 3) The 1st claimant as P.W-1 deposed that on the advice of their Surpanch, they have received Rs.50,000/- towards initial amount of compensation as temporary relief and that the respondent obtained their thumb impressions on several papers and that they are illiterate tribals and that they have received the said amount without knowing the legal rights of actual compensation. In the claim petition, the appellants claimed compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for death of their daughter. In cross-examination, P.W-1 deposed that he went to A.P.S.R.T.C depot and received Rs.50,000/- from A.P.S.R.T.C. towards settlement. He denied the suggestion that the settlement was full and final. He admits that he mentioned in the affidavit filed before the A.P.S.R.T.C. that he will not file any claim petition in future. Exs.B-1 and B-2 read that the amount of Rs.50,000/- was received by the appellants in full and final settlement of their claim for compensation for death of their deceased daughter who died in accident involving A.P.S.R.T.C. vehicle. In view of admission of P.W-1 that in the affidavit filed before A.P.S.R.T.C. he mentioned that he would not file any claim petition in future, it cannot be said that the appellants affixed thumb impressions in Exs.B-1 and B-2 without knowing the contents thereof and as gullible tribals. Therefore, I have no hesitation to find that the appellants received compensation of Rs.50,000/- from A.P.S.R.T.C. with full knowledge of contents of documents in which they affixed their thumb impressions and in full and final settlement of their claim for death of the deceased. 4) Then, the question which arises for consideration would be whether the appellants having received Rs.50,000/- from the A.P.S.R.T.C towards full and final settlement of their claim for compensation for death of their daughter, they are again entitled in law to file the present claim petition in the lower Tribunal and claim another or further compensation over and above the amount which they have already received under Exs.B-1 and B-2. In Kunjamma Mathai (1 supra), the claimants received Rs.62,747-60 Ps. from the insurer and gave receipt acknowledging the same in full and final settlement of the claim after the award was passed and before appeal was filed. The above sum was received by the claimants therein including the sum of Rs.15,000/- towards no fault liability. The Bombay High Court in those circumstances held that right of appeal is a statutory right given under the Motor Vehicles Act and that such a right cannot be taken away by the settlement arrived at by the parties. Basing on the same, it is contended by the appellants’ counsel that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation and that right of the claimants to approach the claims Tribunal under Section 166 of the said Act cannot be taken away by their acceptance of Rs.50,000/- towards full and final settlement of the claim. If Bombay decision is to be accepted, then the procedure adopted by the Court should be to entertain the application or appeal and pass award limiting to the settlement arrived at by both the parties and to endorse full and final settlement of the said awarded amount in view of the amount already received. Under the guise of right to file an application or appeal, a party cannot be allowed to re- agitate their claims or to reopen the claims which were fully and finally settled and satisfied previously between the parties in a voluntary manner. If this sort of reopening settlements are to be allowed, then it leads to situations which will unsettle the issues which were already settled. If this legal position is to be accepted, then it can be applied even to settlements before Lok Adalats and also settlements under Order XXIII C.P.C. It is not the appellants’ case that their thumb impressions were obtained on Exs.B-1 and B-2 without disclosing contents therein or without payment of any amount thereunder as they are illiterate tribals. Admittedly the amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid to the appellants under Exs.B-1 and B-2. In view of admission of P.W-1 in cross-examination that in the affidavit filed before the A.P.S.R.T.C. he had mentioned that he would not file any claim petition in future, P.W-1 cannot be believed to say that he received Rs.50,000/- only as temporary relief. 6) In the result, the appeal is allowed without costs granting compensation of Rs.50,000/- in lumpsum which was already paid to the appellants; and recording satisfaction of the award. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J December 09, 2010 ksh [1] 1996 ACJ 866