D. SHANMUKHA SUNDARAMMA versus D. SUNEETHA AND ORS.

Citation: [2009] 1 S.C.R. 1064 · Decided: 09-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 1 S.C.R. 1064 
A 
D. SHANMUKHA SUNDARAMMA 
v. 
D. SUNEETHA AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 818 of 2009) 
B 
FEBRUARY 9, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.) 
~ ' 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s.166 - Dea-th due to motor 
c accident -
Compensation claim -
Tribunal awarded 
compensation of Rs.3.40 lacs and directed that the amount 
be paid equally to wife and mother of the deceased - High 
Court on a finding that the wife was hardly 20 years of age, 
directed a sum of Rs. 50, 0001- to be paid to mother and the 
D balance to the wife - Held: On facts, considering the age of 
wife and mother of the deceased, it would be appropriate to 
•·· 
grant a sum of Rs.1.25 lacs to the mother and the balance to 
the wife. 
E 
An Auto-driver lost his life in a vehicular accident 
when a lorry dashed against his auto rickshaw. 
Respondent no.1, widow of the deceased, filed claim 
petition under s.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 
Before the Claims Tribunal, the appellant, mother of the 
F 
deceased, also claimed entitled to compensation. The 
tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,40,068/- along 
with 12% interest and further directed that the amount be 
paid equally to respondent no.1 and the appellant. The 
matter was challenged in appeal by the respondent no.1. 
The High Court found that respondent no.1 was hardly 
G 20 years of age and, therefore, a sum of Rs.50,000/- was 
directed to be paid to the appellant and the balance to 
respondent no.1. 
_,.~ 
The only issue in the present appeal was the amount 
H 
1064 
0. SHANMUKHA SUNDARAMMA v. D. SUNEETHA AND 
1065 
ORS. 
to which the appellant i.e. the mother of the deceased 
A 
would be entitled. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: Considering the peculiar facts of the case, the 
B 
age of the widow and that of the appellant, 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. [Para 1 OJ [1067-C-F] 
c 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 818 
of 2009. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 22.11.2006 of 
the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Civil 
D 
"-t 
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3622 of 2000. 
Y. Raja Gopala Rao, Y. Ramesh and 8.V. Niren for the 
Appellant. 
Ravi Bakshi and Y.P. Dhingra for the Respondents. 
E 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 
F 
3. None appears on behalf of the respondent no. 1 and 3 
in spite of notice. Respondent no. 2 has died.· 
4. Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a 
learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. 
G 
... ~ 
5. The background facts in a nutshel~are as follows: 
One Sudhakar Rao (hereinafter referred to as the 
'deceased') lost his life in a vehicular accident on 13.11.1998. 
H 
He was an Auto-driver who was driving Auto Rickshaw No.AP 
1066 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2009] 1 S.C.R. 
A 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 
B 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 
c 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 
0 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% 
E 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 bas
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.