1 9 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8673/2009. Malkeet Singh @ Meet Singh Vs. The Judge, MACT, Anoopgarh Date of Order :: 16th September 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Devendra Singh Dev, for the petitioner. ... BY THE COURT: Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court finds no reason to consider any interference in the order dated 25.05.2009 (Annex. 4) as passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Anoopgarh in Claim Case No.20/2006 awarding the amount of interim compensation to the claimant, the mother of the vehicular accident victim. The petitioner, said to be the husband of the vehicular accident victim, submits that the claimant mother and himself had jointly moved the application, so far the grant of interim compensation was concerned and the submissions were made before the Tribunal that the amount of interim compensation may be apportioned equally between them but the Tribunal, without any cogent reason, awarded the amount of interim compensation only to the claimant mother and denied reasonable amount to the petitioner, husband of the victim. 2 The Tribunal has consciously taken note of the facts and circumstances of the matter before deciding that the claimant, the mother of the victim, ought to be allowed the amount of interim compensation. In the order so passed, there appears no jurisdictional error leading to failure of justice so as to warrant interference in writ jurisdiction of this Court. There appears no reason or justification that the amount of interim compensation be allowed to be apportioned in this case particularly when the facts have been suggested in the claim application that the victim, though was married to the petitioner, but was living with her parents only after having been turned out from her matrimonial home. Though this Court would not make any comments on the merits of the case but then, the proposition as adopted by the Tribunal in awarding the interim compensation to the mother of the victim cannot be said to be unjust or illegal. Moreover, it goes without saying that the Tribunal has every jurisdiction to deal with the rights of the parties at the time of final decision of the claim application. The writ petition stands rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. //Mohan//