Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Jillellamudi Nagamani vs Sarvepalli Vijayalakshmi And Ors. on 28 August, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006(6)ALD234, 2006 A I H C 3559, 1997 (1) SCC 111, (2006) 6 ANDHLD 234, (2007) 3 ACC 35, (2008) 3 ACJ 1765, (2007) 4 TAC 331, (1996) 10 JT 757 (SC), (1996) 3 SERVLR 779, (1997) 1 LAB LN 532, (1997) 5 SUPREME 177, 1997 SCC (L&S) 142, 2006 AIHC 3559
Author: L. Narasimha Reddy
Bench: L. Narasimha Reddy
JUDGMENT L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The second appeal and the CMA (SR) are interrelated and they are filed by the same individual. Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment.
2. The appellant filed O.S. No. 26 of 1998 in the Court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore for a declaration that she is the legally wedded wife of late J. Ananda Hanumantha Rao. She stated that she was earlier married to one Radha Krishna and begot two children and after his death, she married Hanumantha Rao in the year 1991 in Sri Venugopalaswamy Temple, Mulapet, Nellore. According to her, there did not exist any subsisting marriage between Hanumantha Rao and any other woman, when she married him. She pleaded that Hanumantha Rao executed a Will, dated 15-9-1997, in her favour and died in an accident that took place on 5-10-1997. She also filed O.P. No. 270 of 1998 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') before the I Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore.
3. The first respondent in S.A. No. 694 of 2002 filed an independent claim, being O.P. No. 119 of 1998 before the same Tribunal claiming compensation on account of the death of late Hanumantha Rao. She filed a written statement in O.S. No. 26 of 1998 stating that she was married to Hanumantha Rao on 22-2-1967 according to the caste, customs and rites and that the said marriage subsisted till the death of Hanumantha Rao on 5-10-1997. She disputed the marriage of the appellant with Hanumantha Rao as well as the alleged Will.
4. Through its judgment, dated 24-4-2001, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed AS No. 50 of 2001 in the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Nellore. The appeal was also dismissed on 3-6-2002. The second appeal is filed against it.
5. Out of the two claims made for payment of compensation on account of death of late Hanumantha Rao, O.P. No. 119 of 1998 was allowed and a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- was awarded as compensation to the first respondent herein. O.P. No. 270 of 1998 was dismissed. The petitioner filed CMA (SR) No. 76235 of 2002 against the same.
6. The admissibility or otherwise of the claim of the appellant herein under the Act would depend upon the outcome of the suit filed by her seeking declaration that she is the legally wedded wife of late Hanumantha Rao. Therefore, it needs to be seen as to whether the judgments rendered by the Courts below in O.S. No. 26 of 1998 and A.S. No. 50 of 2001 are correct and proper.
7. To prove her case, the appellant examined P.Ws.l to 7 and filed Exs. A1 to A26. Exs.Xl to X4 were also taken on record. On behalf of the first respondent, D.Ws.l and 2 were examined and Exs.Bl to B10 were marked.
8. It is not as if the appellant herein was un-married by the time she is said to have been married to Hanumantha Rao in the year 1991. By that time, she was married to a person, by name Radha Krishna and had two children. According to her, Radha Krishna died. She states that Hanumantha Rao was not married by that time. The first respondent, on the other hand, categorically pleaded that she was married to Hanumantha Rao in the year 1967 and had a daughter through him. In proof of her case, she filed Ex.Bl, wedding invitation card and Ex.B2, lagna patrika. Exs.B4 to B6 are the certificates in relation to her daughter, issued by the school. They revealed that Sarvepalli Srivani is the daughter of late Hanumantha Rao. Ex.B7 is Family members certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kodavalur. In that, it was stated that the first respondent and her daughter alone are the members of the family of late Hanumantha Rao. Exs.B8 to B10 are the certificates issued in relation to the death of late Hanumantha Rao. The evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant is mostly in the form of correspondence. She is unable to prove that the marriage between the first respondent and Hanumantha Rao did not subsist by 1991.
9. The alleged marriage of the appellant with Hanumantha Rao, even if true, cannot be recognized in law in view of the fact that there was a subsisting marriage between Hanumantha Rao and the first respondent. The Courts below have discussed the evidence on record on correct lines and arrived at a proper conclusion. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the same.
10. Once it has emerged that the appellant is not the legal heir or successor of late Hanumantha Rao, she cannot be paid any compensation on account of the death of late Hanumantha Rao and her claim was rightly rejected by dismissing O.P. No. 270 of 1998. Therefore, the C.M.A. (SR) is also liable to be dismissed.
11. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that even if the marriage between her client and Hanumantha Rao was not proved to the satisfaction of the Court, the Will executed by late Hanumantha Rao marked as Ex.A.26 cannot be ignored. She contends that though the compensation under the Act cannot be claimed on the strength of a Will, the rights, that accrued to the appellant under the Will do not get affected, on account of the findings of the Courts below that she is not the legally wedded wife of late Hanumantha Rao. The learned Counsel for the first respondent, on the other hand, opposes this plea.
12. The right of an individual to claim compensation on account of the death of another, depends upon the relevant provisions of the personal law, applicable to him. The compensation has to be paid to the person, who is recognized as a legal heir or successor. The right to receive compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, cannot constitute the subject of testate succession. A will providing for the manner of receiving such compensation would be, per se opposed to public policy and opposed to law. Bequest under a Will, on the other hand, depends purely on the will and volition of the executant of the Will, irrespective of the fact whether the beneficiary was a legal heir or not. This aspect of the matter was not dealt within detail, by the Courts below, obviously because it did not fall for consideration or was not properly canvassed. Therefore, it has to be observed that it shall be open to the appellant to work out her remedies under the Will, duly proving it in accordance with law.
13. For the foregoing reasons, CMA (SR) No. 76235 of 2002 is dismissed. SA No. 694 of 2002 is also dismissed upholding the judgments of the Courts below to the effect that the appellant is not the legally wedded wife of late Hanumantha Rao. It is, however, directed that the said findings shall not have any effect upon the Will, marked as Ex.A26 and it shall be open to the appellant to work out her remedies under that. As and when any proceedings are initiated by the appellant, on the strength of the Will, they shall be dealt with on their merits, uninfluenced by any findings or observations in the judgments in the present set of proceedings.
14. There shall be no order as to costs.