XI-HC-22 v.^'"' ^SSs&':- 311^1 ^T f?^Ri3D^T OTmffer 3^ "iiwid^, dTny'id, R«''wy KTHCtl Stl*1iw 3TrT'raw w^hi _..^:^..^....^34nol ^ ' 200 f3lM a.n^T^gTW^fei AppeHant Respondeafcs 1, Claimants 3. Non-applicants 4. *W\V\<I\-{ KWrf>'fffel<fl tRK-AK ^srf^iTsn^T MISC. AfPEAL No. 953/2004 Saroj ^ai, W/o. Jagdish Singh Thakur, resident of village|Bodlara, Tah. Panuaria, Dislt. Kabirdham, at pres^nt resident of indra Puri, Ti&a. P.S. Civil Liae, qflaspur, Distt. BUaspur (C.G.) 1 Versus Chlie4i Singh aged about 35 years, son of Late Vishau Singh Thakur, R/o. vfflage P.S. Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur(C.G.) Sint. i(4aDiolata aged about 30 years, D/o. late V^shnu Singh Thakur, W/o. Sukhdev Siagh ] Thakur, R/o. village Basaai, P.S. Kunu4, Tahsii Pandaria, Distt. Kabirdliam. Siat (<izwaaa SidcUque, aged about 40 years, |W/o. Siddique Rahat Jan by caste- Musaynan, R/o. Ward House Colony Khokh^r Manjil, Bilaspur, P.S. Civil Liue, Biiasp^ir, Distt. Bilaspiir The 0|riental Insuiance Company Ltd., Divisiotial Office in fi-ont of Narmal School, Bilaspi BBFORE: 11-4-2007 HON'BLE SHRI DHIREKDRA MISHR&. J Shri M.K. Bhaduri, Advo^ate for the appellaat None appears for fhe restiondents. AppeUaut/ Non-applicant| No. 3 has preferred this appeal agamst fhe award dated 20-^-2004 passed by Additional Motor Accident Clauns Tribunal (f.T.C.) Kawardha in M.A.C. No. 33/2003 whereby the leanied asvaid ofRs. 99,000/- ia favoi Clauns T'ribunal after passiag fhe ofclaimants/appellantsNo. l aad XI-HC-22 STI^TiRT R-li*3TI^T sti*< W5cT •-")!f! ir~ TSt -i||<lld4, ®Tf)u'i<o,Rciwy ^^A:..^^/^^ iiiini a>iii«»t tclfcad sn^TewiifftflfOT tbat leaifaed 2, has held that fhe appeUai|it on the death ofdeceased vyi weddedwife ofthe deceasedl Leamed counsel for suf&cieut evidence availabl^ appellant was residuig as ^ years, fuerefore, the Tribuny ia favour of the appeUant accordm.gly held the appeUatit i have heard the perused the impugned awanf In para 9 ofthe awardl fhat fhe appieUaat herselfha^ of Jagdish Siiigh Thakur, two daughters fhrough Jagdf relations wifti J^dish Singl view of the above adinissionl held that she is not entitlei h.eir of the deceased. The available on record aad fhe aad no interference is catled The appeal is disinissetl is uot entitled to claim compensation tlrnu Siagh Thakur as she is not legaUy the appeUant submits fhat there is on record to show that fhe present |nfe of the deceased for a pariod of 8 ought to have drawn a presUmption she is widow of the deceased and entified for receiviag coinpensation. counsel for the appeUaat. I have +i<iffi<fl-i *<iMrfT^'te^<Ri't<;K ^;3f^IT3TI^T the Tribunal has recorded the findiag admitted fhat shc is the inamed wife r^sident of viUage Bodtara and she has |ish Singh Thakur aad her inatTunonial iti Thakur have not beea dissolved. In of the appeUaat, the Court below has <|t for obtaining coiapensation as legal |above fiuding is based on evidence tarne is stricUv ia accordaace wifh law |ia the im.pugned order by this Court. ln actiuission st^e. Sd/- . ' DHIBENDRA MISHRA^ Judge -—-~ ;" .„ ;, (<ft^^^) Wii ^.K igt'a i; !t~t. fc