A claim petition cannot be dismissed solely for the absence of a legal heir certificate if prima facie documentary evidence of relationship is provided, and the court must substantively adjudicate on negligence and quantum.

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the appellant-claimant challenging the order and decree dated 28.06.2013 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1035 of 2010 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge (FTC), Khammam (for short “the Tribunal”), whereby the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 27.04.2009, Vanga Adinarayana (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) boarded an auto-rickshaw bearing registration No.AP 5 TU 1781 proceeding towards Danavaipeta and when it reached near Chodipallypeta Village, the driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner without taking minimum care and caution and applied sudden brakes. As a result, the deceased fell on the road, sustained grievous injuries. He was immediately shifted to Government Hospital, Kakinada, where he was declared dead. Claiming to be the wife and dependant of the deceased, the appellant-claimant filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in the said accident. The Tribunal, upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, dismissed the claim petition, holding that the appellant-claimant failed to establish her entitlement to compensation as a dependent legal heir of the deceased. The Tribunal observed that the appellant had not filed legal heir certificate and was precluded from instituting the claim, in view of the pendency of another claim petition filed by the other family members in O.P.No.463 of 2009 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Kakinada. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-claimant filed the present appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant contended that the Tribunal erroneously dismissed the claim petition merely on the ground of non-production of a legal heir certificate. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant-claimant produced ample evidence, including a Ration Card (Ex.A5), Voter Identity Cards (Ex.A6, A8), and a VRO certificate (Ex.A10), which clearly established her status as the leally wedded wife of the deceased. Learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court that O.P.No.463 of 2009, which was cited by the Tribunal as a ground for dismissal, was subsequently dismissed for default on 09.09.2014.

4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Insurance Company argued that the Tribunal was justified in its findings as there were conflicting claims regarding the legal heirship of the deceased; in separate proceedings, respondent No.3 claimed to be the wife and respondent No.4 claimed to be the son of the deceased, thereby creating doubt regarding the status of the appellant; and as such the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim petition.

5. As seen from the material placed on record, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition primarily on the ground that the appellant failed to establish her status as a dependant legal heir and in view of the pendency of a rival claim in O.P.No.463 of 2009. However, the Tribunal failed to substantively adjudicate issue No.1 regarding the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and issue No.2 regarding the quantum of compensation, despite evidence being led on these aspects. Moreover, it is an admitted position that O.P.No.463 of 2009, which formed the principal basis for the Tribunal’s conclusion, has been dismissed for default on 09.09.2014.

6. In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned judgment does not reflect a complete and proper adjud