1 F.A.No.36/1992 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.36 OF 1992 1. Dada Sakharam Bhapkar, Age 65 years, Occu.Nil 2. Shantabai Dada Bhapkar, Age 60 years, Occu.Nil 3. Namdeo Dada Bhapkar, Age 34 years, Occu.Peon 4. Pandit Dada Bhapkar, Age 28 years, Occu.Agriculture 5. Vasant Dada Bhapkar, Age 28 years, Occu.Service 6. Dilip Dada Bhapkar, Age 28 years, Occu.Education All Resident of Ralegaon, Taluka Nagar, Dist.Ahmednagar ..APPELLANTS (Original Applicants ) VERSUS (1) Sindhu w/o Subhash Bhapkar, | Appeal is dismissed Age 22 years, Occu.Household work, | as against respondent residing at Kumbhephal, | No.1 as per Taluka Ashti, District Beed | Registrar’s order | dated 25.7.2006 2. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Bombay General Manager, M.S.R.T.Corporation, Central Office Byculla, Bombay 8 3. The Divisional Controller, Ahmednagar Division, Sarjepura, Ahmednagar 2 F.A.No.36/1992 (4) Vasant Baburao Gosavi, | Appeal is abated Age major, Occu.Service, | as against Resp.No.4 R/o Bhingar, Ahmednagar | as per Registrar’s |order dated 26.9.2006 (5) Bhanudas Pandurang Kavale, | Appeal is abated as Age major, Occu.Trader, | against Resp.No.5 R/o Burudgaon road, | as per Registrar’s Ahmednagar | order dt.19.4.2011 Mr V.S.Bedre, Advocate for appellants Mr Manoj Shinde, Advocate holding for Mr M.K.Goyanka, Advocate for respondent No.3 Mr A.A.Joshi, Advocate for respondent No.6 Appeal is dismissed as against respondent No.1 as per Registrar’s order dated 25.7.2006 Appeal is abated as against respondent No.4 and 5 as per Registrar’s order dated 26.9.2006 and 19.4.2011, respectively. Respondent No.7 served CORAM : MRS MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 24th AUGUST, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) 1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 31.7.1991, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.105 of 1985, as deceased Subhash Bhapkar was working as a Cleaner, who lost his life in the accident dated 5.7.1985. Deceased left behind widow Sindhu, who also filed separate petition bearing Motor Accident Claim Petition No.143 of 2005 before the same Tribunal. Both the Motor Accident Claim Petitions were decided by a common order dated 31.7.1991. By the said order, the Tribunal held that the appellants and widow Sindhu were entitled 3 F.A.No.36/1992 to get the total compensation of Rs.1 lac as a whole. The Tribunal bifurcated the amount of compensation payable to appellant Nos.1 and 2 at Rs.40,000/- and remaining amount of Rs.60,000/- was awarded to widow Sindhu. Being aggrieved with this apportionment of Rs.40,000/- and Rs.60,000/-, appellants filed this appeal. Sindhu was made respondent No.1, however, appeal was dismissed as against respondent No.1 as per orders of the Registrar dated 25.7.2006 for want of service. 2. Following points arise for determination : (i) Whether appellants are entitled to get more compensation than Rs.40,000/- ? (ii) Whether the order of granting compensation to Sindhu to the extent of Rs.60,000/- is illegal ? 3. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that appellants are parents of the deceased and respondent No.1 remarried after the death of her husband and, therefore, she is not entitled to get amount of Rs.60,000/-. 4. This is the only ground pleaded before this Court. The same points were agitated before the Tribunal. However, no evidence is tendered by the appellants of the remarriage of widow Sindhu. 4 F.A.No.36/1992 Moreover, learned Counsel for the appellants is not in a position to tell the specific date of alleged remarriage of Sindhu. Widow cannot be deprived of her claim or her entitlement to receive the compensation only on the ground of stray allegations of remarriage. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. ( MRS MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (vvr/36.92fa)