M. F. SALDANHA, J.

( 1 ) TWO interesting points of law, both of far-reaching consequences have been agitated in this pair of appeals which concern the same unfortunate incident. On 30. 5. 1992, a Premier padmini car met with an accident in which the son and niece of the insured Narayana shetty died. Two separate claims were preferred before the M. A. C. T. , Belgaum and by order dated 6. 7. 1996, which is a common order in both the petitions a sum of Rs. 2,80,000 less Rs. 25,000 already received was awarded in respect of the death of the son and a sum of Rs. 1,02,400 less Rs. 25,000 already received was awarded in the case of the death of the girl anitha along with interest and costs. By the present two appeals, the insurance company has seriously contested the awards in respect of certain specified heads only. There is a common challenge in respect of both of them whereby the appellant contends that the amount of Rs. 1,00,000 which has been paid separately under a separate clause of the policy must be taken into account while quantifying the total compensation payable and as far as the second case is concerned, the appellant contends that the claimants who happen to be the two married sisters of the deceased girl are not entitled to any compensation under the head of dependency which is in fact the main head of the award. What is pointed out to the court is that the claimant mother died during the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal and her two daughters who happen to be the sisters of the deceased girl were brought on record and they prosecuted the litigation. It is relevant to point out that the appellant challenged the action at that very point of the litigation and the matter came up to this court because the contention raised was that the cause of action gets extinguished on the death of the claimant and that the two married sisters have no legal locus standi to either continue with the litigation or to style themselves as beneficiaries. This court negatived the contention and upheld the order of the Tribunal whereby the sisters had been brought on the record and they were permitted to prosecute the claim petitions. That issue is, therefore, concluded but it has been agitated in a different form, namely, that the appellant has seriously contested the award of any amount to the two sisters on the ground that they can never qualify as dependants on the facts of the present case. Essentially, therefore, the only two broad questions that fall for determination in this pair of appeals centre around the following two issues: (A) Whether the amount of Rs. 1,00,000 that has been paid under a separate clause of the policy in respect of the same incident is required to be deducted from the compensation that has been awarded in each of the cases? (B) Whether the challenge of appellant to the award of a sum of Rs. 1,02,400 under the head of loss of dependency to the sisters in the second case is justifiable?

( 2 ) I need to straightaway point out that mr. Mahesh, learned counsel who represents the appellant submitted that he is placing heavy reliance on the observations of the Supreme Court in the decision in gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R. M. K. Veluswami, 1958-65 ACJ 179 (SC ). Mr. Mahesh relies on the observations of the supreme Court wherein it has been very clearly laid down that where pecuniary advantage in whichever form, from whatever source comes to the applicant by reason of the death, that it will have to be taken into consideration. The court was dealing with the provisions of the Fatal accidents Act and laid down that a party cannot be permitted to recover twice over for the same loss. Learned counsel vehemently submitted that in the present case, the Tribunal has totally overlooked the fact that the amount of Rs. 1,00,000 was paid under the same policy and not a different policy, that it related to the same incident and not some other facts and he submitted that it was an amount that would merit consideratio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document